













































































































































































':#'i 




V',. 


^ >‘Au 

p.C.i 

r aVj. 'i - 


t v^-; ^ ■ ■ #-v . 


■^' 'L: ■ .V > • •’^^- ** 


a 


r,- ^fll^'*.,<r '■ 


m; 


VA r 
’ ♦ ! * - 


b ■r -f , ■ > • v»'.'i . 



WM 

■* '•*. .' V ' •. 



-^1 

■ .'f J ‘ * 


i'.' •.'f J • . I' *1 Ml 

f .i j* ‘ J .. I. 



■v 


'1 »* ^ 




A. 


V: 


- ■ ‘ Mif.l-vT. • • . 1 . *1 ‘ 


♦ i 


KBS’* ^ ! w* V' , ^ - 



ifW>V . ' 


^ HI 


i*".. iT,)! 'J *'''‘^*''jL-irt'jAk 
tejF-' Tll< * f ‘■' yK 


;•■•) 



1^ 




•i f 


A » 




L'W 


f i!•.% « /»5 * ^ f * i n 

. / V -#^l - VK : 

y - 'k 

•.»'t . * ,' ' - #V, ‘ i 

... ..^. :,v. • • ^-.A ' ^ ■*■ »Ai 






■s 


H' 


’T- 


V, • V/. > r/ :• ,'• ' ■ ' »A I 

i. 1 % ^. ' ‘. * • I, ''^' . ‘A ' 


:s- 




'. A .*'■ 


M' 




• ^1 


i.i'v: ■ ' 

■V •v;/:. . 


!• > 




/•V; .... 

.■,;.J^ , ... ■ 




V'?'' ,.'.',N'f ", '," '.^M, 

JaLJLiWjfcJt^ . « 1 - ^ '» Ji.-* 1 

^• ■ ■ /• ’ r--' 

.'jjHHESiSni^-. . (%-TkSv ., , ,i,j . f, % j, - 



<vf': 


sd'^l 


' 1 


IC., 


m ' ' ^ . 

I't ^ 

"i" -• '• 


-I 


». . ** 


i' '.'/ f .-I 

/. '. -iilx'. A' ’.}»' 

‘ ' ''' "’^'i ■•‘■'t 

■If.’ii" ' i^i-. 


^..' .'i-' ?4'-j(i;T 
.... ;. '.^ 


;%■ ■' 

.. > 




»:4'. v'V 

1"’“ * ‘ . V 

...... 









f 4 


(* 


1 


ViCMl 





TREATY PORTS IN CHINA 

(A STUDY IN DIPLOMACY) 




M 






;■ ‘ ';^ f 



. *1 


•' -^ ' <T 






, --t* 




V 




■-M." . W«fti?tv»> ■ T» ■'5PA'''’''*''Sr MFWwTWf^f'* '.'* ' ’fli® 

:■■ ', ■■ . =‘ 


\ t 


• ti J 




IT- -VJ 


V . 




r/.v*' ' ‘ i>'i ‘'■■* '’*'• M 

«■■■ ' '''V ’ '■■:■"-#(>• 'i 

*VV 4>''» W4vr>-/ •* * - r’* tuV'Vv'^ - * ^ ^ j ', 




t * ' ‘ 


"* 4 *' rf- ' ^ 

' ^ M « r 

W ' - « » •• t\^ 

mmi:M^ ''ymm 


wi ■! • ■ - * J ^ I ■' '-*‘■1 ■♦ • 

I’v'I' ■ ' }.;. ■ <■ / ^ » >'.--yW'» .aVV ■' ■*,*•’'I I ».^t . 


is.r 

'?:• 




.K 


i ^ 


:S ■M.^k 



■1 

J. i i ‘‘O ' 

■•'' ^ 't'’^ -■'■ l« ■ .,•> ,•■ 4 :^.^ ■ ' ■ 

’V'% V. ■'■ “^v-v - a. 

J—■ , ■;■,>.:• .■ A; :- 


■ i ..CL 


( < 





.f "’ ••. • » '■- * 





Btf.ft . I , .!*•■. « 


f.M-'t-. 



■ ' ; -viv/ 

;; . V< ■' '^T . , •.,'>».* 

' , •/■,■/',, I At,, . * \< 

• I . * A 


/. v-.V 


’; r’ 'V >■ V'/V ’' 

; * ^ ^ 



» I 

i <r»" 

I ms 



;A 




1 


■'.'■< •*■ A 



HH^U vatfCfc.*! I W'>*A<t 


L *■ ’' ’■' 



-V 





TREATY PORTS IN CHINA 

(a study in diplomacy) 


/ 


By 

EN-SAI TAi/ph.D. 


NEW YORK CITY 

1918 




Cop-^righty igi8y by En-Sai Tai 




HF3TT6 


FfB i6 1918 


UNIVERSITY PRINTING OFFICE 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 


©GI.A4922< 

1 VO . 7, , ^ 



DEDICATED 


TO 

THE MEMORY OF 
MY PARENTS 

WHOSE PARENTAL GUIDANCE AND 
CARE IN EARLY YEARS 
NO TRIBUTE OF MINE 


CAN EVER REPAY 




r,. 

-.t " i •> ■> ' 

I'T-.. ' , 

M- - r 







■ "’I - ; 

- ''f 


t S' »• 


^,. ' .■?>^^'^f;,:'''' ■ 5 ; 


i¥A'.; 


.*1 ^ r 



1;'v:.j, l;v<' :, ' 'M.: 


* 




4 > 


.V' -n,*. . 

. ■* ,rV. 




A;>:i 

vl /'i. . • 



..V 

. * V A . 


y.'wv^is' 


i' 


V A. 


mm^rymK ■■ ■ ^ 

« I * W '' T ’ > 


• ' «1 *' 

’ • •>;: '. 

' ‘ NVrt s 4 




■\ 



"4 


V.. 


■ ■:■ ■ -‘-iA- •;»# A'.-; ., 

." ■• 



> I 






I:tf ■i'KU 





M'. • \ ,. • 


f I 






... • .i 




.4-v; [■'' ’ *’ . ■‘''"V.-'iJt,-.^aiffiV .■.'■,;’i'ft,>.'.'V-'r i»<'ir-■; 

J ^v 


|R«- . ■'' ..^ ^^''' / ■ .^iiA, X ) ,;. v»i it» .'■'I 

'W: '.-^ ■ aV':‘ V' 


;t • '•>:' 

r Vv i 




/<, , ‘U, 

l-f 




A V V. 

*aV ‘',♦ . 4 :» 



(i) !i*m * • 


4*‘V 


» 



-.' ‘‘i. 




*V, ^ i 

w,r., ' 

' 'r . ' i;|y - ‘ 


• \‘ .V, *! 

* •• 





.H ‘V 


;^.jr 



;.-;,:y;rf.' vm,'* 

7 ^ ■ ■ 



»t 


■ ^ , 


’S\ 


I» 1 


1 ■' 


w 


‘ > * 

' ' I \: 




..^•'• 7' * 'I L* ^ < 

t {.. *• .• * . 1 ^' 

.7 • ' 1 '• '■ i' '* 


•V ‘ 




>,r‘h 


'• /. 


'• f 




■' ■' H’i 


. S 


1 


^ '''.i i ''T''" 


k 


ArJ 


» .> 


' i < 


I » 

4 ^ I ' ji' ^ 

L f * I ' 11 ♦*- ' 


i r 

•*f 


I, 
% 


,i'.f 

■ '.vr'' 




I 


■ -4 ' ■-■ '7 

) •f '■ 

:ii.‘. I ' I > 


M 







-1. 


1 ®,i' ; .v!.ii|i -iJ 

'V..; . , j. ,: ■'■ V/” vi'^y .iA .jk^rf-.1 

'fwfe'v'' 

• .. ,W ,;yy'«;'-- 



. _ 




1 /^; • 



■w.'. y 


:u *' ;/' , • 

^^'i'-'- -T-' ' 



■ vi- • I .' ’■ 






V ;•■ ■ V'.^" >sr ^r'‘' '•J ’' 







-i:mam ? n^v:^ < 

‘.Its • 




‘f By* • .■ 

Mv. 

ilA^o ; .W ‘‘' 

T«.j /<s'r. 



j’C ' < Vv»y ■)»?*,'> , ■.'-' \ 



Preface 


There are four different kinds of commercial ports in China, which 
are now opened to foreign trade. In this monograph the writer has 
only dealt with the subject of the 'treaty ports’. Although I am 
not going to touch upon the other three kinds of commercial ports 
—‘Ports voluntarily opened by China’, ‘Ports in the Leased Terri¬ 
tory’, and ‘Ports of Call’—in this dissertation, nevertheless, it is 
advisable to point out the nature of these different kinds of ports 
in the preface. 

In the ‘treaty port’ the rights therein conferred upon the foreign 
powers are to be found in the treaties and agreements between 
China and the foreign powers. In these ports subjects of treaty 
powers are entitled to carry on their mercantile pursuits “without 
molestation and restraint.” The boundaries and the foreign 
jurisdiction in these ports are also defined by the diplomatic 
documents. 

However, in recent years China has of her own will and initiative 
opened a number of places to commerce, under conditions which 
are quite different from those establishing the ‘treaty ports’. The 
boundaries of a voluntarily opened port are defined by imperial 
decree, and within them both Chinese and foreign merchants are 
allowed to lease ground without distinction. But, “the control of 
all affairs therein,” as is provided in the regulations for the port of 
Chinan Fu, a voluntarily opened port, “shall pertain entirely to 
China; foreigners must not interfere.” 

Now in regard to the ports in the leased territory, they are leased 
for terms of years, e.g.j Kiaochow for a term of ninety-nine years. 
“The precise position of foreign merchandise in such leased ports,” 
said Dr. V. K. Wellington Koo, “depends primarily upon the nature 
of the relationship in which the territory encompassed within the 
ports stands with the sovereign of China.” {The Status of Aliens in 
China, p. 252.) This leased territory is more for the purpose of 
naval strategy than for commercial purpose, consequently, its nature 
is quite different from that of the ‘treaty ports’, the existence of 
which is solely for trade and commerce. 


Preface 


viii 

Finally, we come to the ‘ports of call.’ “Foreign vessels,” said 
Dr. Koo {The Status of Aliens in China, pp. 264-265), “are also per¬ 
mitted to carry on a limited traffic at certain localities along the 
great rivers designated as ports of call. Six places on the Yangtze 
River have been opened as such ports under the Chefoo agreement 
of September 13, 1876, subject to certain regulations therein out¬ 
lined and four on West River under the agreement with Great 
Britain of February 4, 1897, under the same regulations as those on 
the Yangtze River; while the treaty of Shimonoseki, April 17, 1895, 
provides that steam navigation for vessels under the Japanese flag 
for the conveyance of passengers and cargo shall be extended to the 
places on the Yangtze River from Ichang to Chungking and on the 
Woosung River and the Canal from Shanghai to Soochow and 
Hangchow, subject to the rules and regulations in force governing 
the navigation of the inland waters of China by foreign vessels.” 
In regard to the status of these ‘ports of call’, it is provided in the 
Chefoo Agreement of September 13, 1876 (Section III,‘Article I), 
that “these being all places of trade in the interior, at which, as they 
are not open ports, foreign merchants are not legally authorized to 
land or ship goods; steamers shall be allowed to touch for the pur¬ 
pose of landing or shipping passengers or goods.” Further, it pro¬ 
vides in the same Article that “foreign merchants will not be author¬ 
ized to reside or open houses of business or warehouses at the places 
enumerated as ‘ports of call’.” {British and Foreign State Papers, 
vol. Ixxi, p. 933.) 

I cannot conclude my prefatory observations without expressing 
my profound gratitude to my esteemed teacher. Professor John 
Bassett Moore, for his painstaking supervision of my work, for his 
stimulating interest in it, for his ever-ready encouragement of sound 
scholarship, and above all, for his great sacrifice of time in going 
over the entire manuscript. 

En-Sai Tai 

New York City 
December, IQ17 


Contents 


Chapter I. The Conditions Prior to the Opening of the 
Treaty Ports 

§ I. The Treatment of Aliens prior to the 'Closed-Door’ Policy 
§ 2. The Reaction in China’s Foreign Policy 
§ 3 - Organization to Conduct Foreign Trade 
§ 4. Jurisdiction over Aliens 

Chapter II. The First Five Treaty Ports (1842-1858) 

§ I. The Early Treaties 
§ 2. The Treaty Port of Shanghai 
§ 3. The Treaty Port of Ningpo 
§ 4. The Treaty Port of Foochow 
§ 5. The Treaty Port of Amoy 
§ 6. The Treaty Port of Canton 

Chapter III. The Treaties of 1858 and i860 

Chapter IV. The Development of Treaty Ports in Formosa 

Chapter V. The Development of the Treaty Ports since 
i860 

§ I. Delimitation of the Settlement at Ningpo 
§ 2. Plan for the Municipal Government of Shanghai 
§ 3. Opposition to the granting of an exclusive concession 
sought by the French Consul, and the understanding reached 
with foreign ministers not to seek exclusive concessions in treaty 
ports 

§ 4. The Regulations of the French Municipal Government 
at Shanghai 

§ 5. The Chefoo Convention of September 13, 1876 with 
Great Britain 

§ 6. American Settlement at Wen Chow 

§7. The Franco-Chinese War and the Treaty Ports (1884- 

1887) 

§ 8. Treaty Ports in Tibet 

§ 9. Treaty Ports opened by the Treaty of Shimonoseki and 
the other treaties between China and Japan 


X 


Contents 


§ 10. Rights of Aliens to reside and conduct business at 
Soochow and Hangchow outside of the concession limits 

§ II. Treaty Ports on the West River and the Opening of 
Momein or Shunning and Ssumao to Foreign Trade 

§ 12. The Problem of Extension in the Shanghai Settlements 
§ 13. Japanese Concession at Amoy 

§ 14. Regulations to be applied in any future extension of the 
British or French Concession at Hankow 

§ 15. The Situation of the Treaty Ports during the Boxer 
Rebellion 

§ 16. The Proposed Extension of Foreign Settlements in 
Tientsin and the 'grab game’ policy 

§ 17. Restoration of Tientsin to Chinese Authorities 
§ 18. Treaty Ports opened by the British Treaty of Shanghai 
of September 5, 1902, and the American Treaty of October 8, 1903 
§ 19. Rights of Foreigners in Peking 
§ 20. The Whampoo River Conservancy 
§ 21. Reservation of American Rights in the extension of the 
Japanese Concession at Hankow 

§ 22. The Right of Aliens within the City Walls of a Treaty 
Port 

§ 23. The Neutrality of the Foreign Settlements in the Treaty 
Ports during the Revolution of 1911 

§ 24. The Shanghai French Concession Extension 
§ 25. The Question of Extending the International Settle¬ 
ment at Shanghai 

§ 26. The Question of Extending the French Settlement at 
Tientsin 

Chapter VI. Municipal Administration in the Treaty Ports 

Chapter VII. Foreign Jurisdiction in the Treaty Ports 

§ I. Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in cases between Chinese 
and Aliens 

§ 2. Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in cases between Aliens 
§ 3. Foreign Courts and the British System of Foreign Juris¬ 
diction in the Treaty Ports 

§ 4. The American System of Foreign Jurisdiction in the 
Treaty Ports 

§ 5. The Mixed Courts at Shanghai 


Chapter VIII. Conclusion 


Chapter I 


The Conditions Prior to the Opening of the 
Treaty Ports 

§ j. The Treatment of Aliens prior to the ‘Closed-DooT Policy. 

Prior to the adoption of the ‘Closed-Door’ policy in her dealing 
with aliens, China extended her encouragement to foreign commerce 
in all parts of her territory. There was no policy of seclusion and 
confinement, as her doors were kept widely open to welcome whoever 
chose to enter. There was no law in restricting the movement of 
foreigners within her dominion, and the aliens who were touring in 
the country hardly met any official interference. Foreign commerce 
increased so rapidly that even in 990 B. c., it was thought worth 
while to levy a duty on imported goods. “During the Tang dynasty 
(a. d. 618-907) a regular market was opened at Canton and an 
officer was sent thither to collect the government dues on sales.” ^ 

§ 2. The Reaction in China's Foreign Policy. 

However, by the beginning of the sixteenth century China’s for¬ 
eign policy towards aliens within her territory began to have a 
reaction. From that time down to the middle of the last century, 
the Chinese Government pursued a restrictive and more or less 
exclusive policy in its dealings with the foreign merchants and 
missionaries. 

The adoption of this ‘closed-door’ policy was due, in the first 
place, to the reports of the conquest of the East Indies and the 
Malay Archipelago by Portuguese adventurers at the opening of 
the 16th century, as an immediate outcome of the discovery by 
Vasco da Gama of the maritime route to Asia by the way of the 
Cape of Good Hope. The report from the Sultan of Malacca that 
the Portuguese had by force of arms seized his territory in 1511, and 
the aggressive acts of the Spaniards in the Philippines in 1543 further 
increased the alarm of the Chinese Government. 

In the second place, we must remember that towards the close of 
the 16th and the first part of the 17th century the internal 

1 R. K. Douglas, Europe and the Far East, p, 2. 


2 


Treaty Ports in China 

affairs of China were such as to require a change of her policy 
towards aliens. The ruling house, the Ming dynasty, was then 
struggling between life and death. The rebellions within China 
Proper and the Manchu invasion from the north quaked the founda¬ 
tion of the ruling dynasty; in other words, the ruling family was 
then in a hopeless state of defense against its destroyers. Thus it 
was but natural that the rulers resorted to schemes for preventing 
aliens from taking advantage of China’s weakness to occupy and 
conquer her dominions. 

In addition to these two arguments there was another one, viz.y 
the necessity for the changed attitude. The atrocious conduct of 
the Portuguese and others appeared to be a just cause for taking 
precautions. As early as 1506 the foreign traders began to be un¬ 
scrupulous and to resort to lawlessness in order to gain admission 
into China. A Chinese work^ records: 

During the reign of Chingtih (1506), foreigners from the West, called 
Fah-lan-ki (or Franks), who said they had tribute, abruptly entered the 
Bogue, and by their tremendously loud guns, shook the place far and near. 
This was reported at court, and an order returned to drive them away imme¬ 
diately, and stop the trade. 

Shortly after this event, Simon Andrada in 1518 seized the island 
of Shong-Chuan and began to commit acts of piracy but was finally 
crushed by the Chinese naval force.^ Later, in 1537, the Portuguese 
again took possession of several islands in the neighborhood of 
Canton. “Macao was commenced under the pretext of erecting 
sheds for drying goods introduced under the appellation of tribute, 
and alleged to have been damaged in a storm.” ^ At Ningpo and 
Chinchow they refused to submit to the native authorities, and 
outraged every law and set the feelings of the people at defiance, 
and as a consequence, they suffered according to nature’s retri¬ 
bution.® 

The Portuguese were not, however, the only disturbers of peace 
and order in the Chinese territory. The Dutch in commencing their 
intercourse with China forcibly occupied the Pescadores, but were 
compelled to retire when they saw that they could hardly stand 

2 Quoted by Williams in The Middle Kingdom, vol. 2, p. 432. 

* Davis, China, vol. i, p. 30. 

* Williams, A History of China, p. 76, 

5 Douglas, Europe and the Far East, p. ii. 


3 


Conditions Prior to Opening of Treaty Ports 

against the Chinese troops who were sent to dislodge them. Then 
they seized Formosa, but in the war of 1662 the Chinese drove them 
out of the island. The Englishmen were even ruder in making their 
d6but on Chinese territory. In 1637 Captain Weddel, commander 
of a fleet of five British East India Company’s ships, sailed up to 
Canton and arrived in the neighborhood of the forts. In writing 
about this event one author ® said: 

The authorities at Canton were about to negotiate with the English 
Captain as to the conferring of commercial privilege on his compatriots when 
their minds succumbed to the evil influences of the Portuguese, who "so 
beslandered them (the English) to the Chinese, reporting them to be rogues, 
thieves, beggars, and what not, that they became very jealous of the real 
meaning of the English.” Accordingly, the Bogue forts fired upon one of the 
barges in search of a water-boat, in order to compel the departure of the 
English vessels. 

In reply to this, the Englishmen displayed their bloody ensigns 
and attacked the forts, and the Chinese garrison was forced to 
retreat. Thus, the Englishmen took possession of the forts, and 
soon after this, the Canton authorities sued for peace. After this 
event, there was no further trade between China and England at 
Canton until 1684. Although several attempts were made by the 
English to establish foreign trade at Amoy, Chusan and Ningpo, 
nevertheless, there was little profit on account of the heavy tolls 
levied by the local officials for this privilege. 

§ 3 • Organization to Conduct Foreign Trade. 

The foreign merchants tried to evade the oppression of the Canton 
officials by seeking an entrance at Amoy, Ningpo, and Chusan, but 
in this attempt they failed, as the local authorities in these places 
made even heavier exactions. Consequently, they were forced to 
return to Canton, and by an imperial decree of 1757 all the other 
ports of the empire were closed to foreign commerce. From that 
year until 1842 Canton was the only port for foreign trade and 
intercourse. In 1720 there was established a union of Chinese mer¬ 
chants to regulate the prices in tea and silk for their private interest.^ 
This organization, the Cohong, was given, by a charter in 1760, the 
monopoly of the trade, but on account of its insolvency it was dis- 

® Koo, Status of Aliens in China, pp. 25-26. 

7 Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire, p. 65. 


4 


Treaty Ports m China 


solved by order of the Government in 1771. Following this disso¬ 
lution, another monopolistic organization was created to continue 
under the old name of Cohong. This body,^ at first composed of 
twelve and later thirteen Chinese merchants, like its predecessor, 
was given an exclusive right to trade with the aliens. In considera¬ 
tion of this valuable privilege the Cohong had to perform political, 
diplomatic, fiscal and commercial duties. It was responsible for the 
good behavior of all the foreign population and the customs dues 
on the whole trade. It was bound to transmit correspondence 
between the Chinese and foreign officials, and it must see that the 
foreigners are obeying the orders and decrees of the authorities. 
The only means which it possessed of securing the enforcement and 
observance by the aliens of the orders and decrees, was the threat 
of stopping the trade completely, which usually proved to be an 
efficient weapon.^ 

However, on the side of the foreign merchants there was no such 
monopolistic organization as the Cohong. These foreign traders 
represented twelve nationalities and carried on their trade inde¬ 
pendent of one another not only as between the merchants of 
different nations but, with one or two exceptions, as between those 
of the same nation. The exceptions were the British and Dutch 
East India Companies. The former, by reason of its wealth, power 
and organization, was a more powerful factor in the history of the 
foreign trade at Canton. By its charter, it was granted by the 
Parliament a monopoly of the trade between China and Great 
Britain, and it exercised an effective authority over all British sub¬ 
jects trading in China as it had the power to grant and revoke 
licenses.^® By reason of these advantages, the Company enjoyed 
with the local authorities a prestige and inffuence which no other 
body of foreign merchants shared. The officials negotiated with 
them about matters of regulation not only of trade but also of the 
traders. The privileges that the Company secured for British 
merchants were also enjoyed by all other foreign traders without a 
separate grant from the local authorities. On account of this, the 
western merchants looked for protection, not to their own consuls, 

8 Ibid., pp. 67-68. 

® Sargent, Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy, pp. 15-17. 

Ibid., p. 17 n.; citing 26 Geo. III., cap. 57; 33 Geo. III., cap. 52; 53 Geo. III., 
cap. 155. 


5 


Conditions Prior to Opening of Treaty Ports 

who were, after the fashion of the time, themselves merchants, and 
who “not being credited by the Chinese Government, came and 
went, hoisted or lowered their flags, without the slightest notice 
from the authorities,” but to the Company, which was always 
ready to be the champion not only of British interests but also of 

all foreign interests.^^ 

§ 4. Jurisdiction over Aliens. 

On account of the increase of the foreign population in China 
during the first half of the 19th century, the problem of legal 
control over aliens became greater every year. At Canton the num¬ 
ber increased from 165 in 1832 to 307 in 1836.^^ In 1830 the number 
at Macao was 3,351 white persons and 1,129 slaves.^^ The nation¬ 
alities represented in the above figures were British, Indians, Parsees 
Americans, Portuguese, Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, French, 
Spaniards and Italians.'^ These aliens lived together in a community 
of their own but they had no common organization for their own ad¬ 
ministration. The consuls appointed by the various governments 
were merely merchants, neither accredited to the Chinese Govern¬ 
ment nor recognized by it as official agents of their nations. 
Consequently, the legal control of aliens was left to the Chinese 
authorities. 

The Chinese notion of territorial sovereignty and jurisdiction, as 
entertained, though at times vaguely, by the local authorities in 
those days, was not essentially different from that which the modern 
international jurists maintain. It was claimed that within the ter¬ 
ritory the Chinese laws were supreme, and that foreigners were 
subject to the same obligation and penalties as the natives.^® During 
this period regulations were made and adopted from time to time 
for observance by the traders and other aliens. For instance, they 
were required to return from Canton to Macao or their home when 
the trading season was over; they were prohibited from bringing 
women, guns, spears, or other arms to the factories; they were not 
allowed to row for pleasure on the river.^^ The penalty for the vio- 

Williams, A History of China, p. 102. 

12 Sargent, Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy, p. 20. 

1® Morse, International Relations, p. 72. 

Ibid., p. 46. 

16 25 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 397. 

16 Sargent, Anglo-Chinese Commerce and Diplomacy, pp. 75 - 76 . 

1^ Morse, International Relations, pp. 69-71. 


6 


Treaty Ports in China 

lation of these regulations was the deportation of the offenders or 
the stoppage of trade for the whole community. 

The question of jurisdiction in civil suits between aliens and 
Chinese was unimportant and in fact did not arise during this 
period, as differences were easily and quietly settled by direct nego¬ 
tiation between the parties themselves. In the words of a competent 
authority: 

Civil suits gave China no trouble. Those between foreigners and Chinese 
were readily settled, since the power of dictating terms was always in the 
hands of the Chinese merchant, with whom alone could be transacted any 
business which might give rise to a suit—except only the loans of money to 
Chinese which occasioned difficulty from time to time. Business disputes 
between foreigners were never brought to the knowledge of the Chinese, and 
this was quite in accord with the Chinese practice of settling civil suits through 
the gild, or by arbitration—never by appealing in the courts. 

The question of jurisdiction in criminal cases gave rise to a good 
deal of friction between the Chinese authorities and aliens. The 
Chinese authorities claimed that crimes committed on their terri¬ 
tory should be punished according to Chinese laws. However, 
writers and commentators, both of that period and of later date, 
stated that the administration of criminal justice as regards Euro¬ 
peans should be given up by China on the ground that her methods 
of punishment were barbarous and cruel. In criticising this state¬ 
ment I may quote the following:^® 

We, in the twentieth century, must be careful not to measure the doings 
of former times by the standards and conventions of today, as we hope that 
our doings may be gauged by our standards, and not by those of the future. 
In the cases cited, the official chronicler of the East India Company declares 
that “the Chinese have no desire to screen their countrymen from punishment 
when guilty, but the inquiry must be carried on according to their own forms 
and usages;” and this proviso is true, not only in case of charges against 
Chinese, but as well when Chinese brought plaint against the foreign saildrs. 

Although American criminal laws were milder than those of the 
East or the West, yet in going to China the Americans adopted the 
position embodied in the declaration made on the occasion of the 
Terranova trial—“We are bound to submit to your laws while we 
are in your waters, be they ever so unjust, we will not resist 
Ibid., p. 96. 

Ibid., p. 109. 


7 


Conditions Prior to Opening of Treaty Ports 

them.” 20 xhis policy was pursued consistently until 1844 when Caleb 
Cushing concluded the treaty of 1844 by which extraterritorial 
rights were secured. 

At first it seemed as if the English were willing to submit to the 
Chinese law, but “experience drove them to debate as to what the 
law was, and how it was administered.” So it is necessary for us to 
have a brief comparison of the Chinese and English criminal law 
of the time to see how much differences there were. 

The Chinese law has been briefly summarized by a competent 
writer as follows:21 

1°. Wilful and premeditated murder is punishable by beheading. 

2°. For homicide during an affray, though without any express desire to 
kill, or killing another on suspicion of theft, or being accessory to a murder, 
the penalty is strangulation. 

3°. Persons who kill or wound another purely by accident (in such way 
that no sufficient previous warning could have been given) may redeem 
themselves from punishment by payment of a fine to the family of the person 
killed or wounded. 

4°. Killing in lawful self-defense is justifiable and not punishable. 

At the same period, the English law inflicted the death penalty 
for the stealing of sheep and horses, the stealing of money exceeding 
twelve pence, and other similar offenses. An attempt to kill, even 
without wounding, was punished as a capital felony, and it was not 
until 1861 that attempts to murder resulting in bodily injury, were 
taken away from the list of capital crimes.22 Thus the two laws 
were about the same as far as the standard of punishment was 
concerned. 

To the Chinese law the English finally refused to submit, and the 
various causes of ill-feeling and friction went on increasing until an 
igniting point was reached, when open war between China and 
Great Britain broke out, through which the disputes were finally 
settled by the treaty of Nanking of August 29, 1842. 

20 Williams, Middle Kingdom, vol. 2, p. 460, citing North American Review, January, 

1835- 

21 Morse, International Relations, p. no. 

22 J. F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, vol. 3, pp. 114-116. 


Chapter II 

The First Five Treaty Ports (1842-1858) 

§ I. The Early Treaties, 

By the treaty of Nanking of August 29, 1842, China opened five 
ports to foreign trade. By Article 2 “British subjects, with their 
families and establishments, were allowed to reside, for the purpose 
of carrying on their mercantile pursuits, without molestation or 
restraint, at the cities of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, and 
Shanghai.” By the second part of the same article, the British 
Government was authorized to appoint Superintendents or Con¬ 
sular Officers to reside at each of those ports to serve as the medium 
of communication between the Chinese authorities and the mer¬ 
chants, and “to see that the just duties and other dues of the Chinese 
Government,” as thereinafter provided for, are “duly discharged by 
Her Britannic Majesty’s subjects.” By Article 5 it was provided 
that the Chinese Government should abolish the monopolistic 
privileges of the Hong merchants (or Co-Hong) at all ports where 
British merchants might reside, and should permit the latter to 
carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they 
pleased. Further, the Chinese Government stipulated to pay to the 
British Government the sum of $3,000,000, “on account of debts 
due to British subjects by some of the Hong merchants or Co-Hong,” 
who had become insolvent, and who owed very large sums of money 
to British subjects. By Article 10 China agreed to establish at all 
the five ports a “fair and regular tariff of export and import customs 
and other dues,” which tariff was to be “publicly notified and pro¬ 
mulgated for general information.” ^ 

The second part of Article 2 of this treaty was very significant, 
as it imposed on the consuls a duty which was formerly imposed 
on the Co-Hong by the Chinese Government. As this monopolistic 
association was abolished, it was agreed that the British Consuls 
should see to it that the duties due to the Chinese authorities were 
paid by British subjects, and that the Consul should “be security 

^ 30 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 398 et seq. 


9 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

for all British merchant ships entering any of the five ports.” This 
provision the British Consuls carried out with a great sense of justice 
and a desire to help China, and as the other powers did not have 
such a provision in their treaties, the prestige of the British Consuls 
stood very high, and proved to be a deciding factor in leading to the 
establishment of the foreign inspectors of customs. 

A supplementary treaty was signed at the Bogue on October 
8, 1843, by Sir H. Pottinger, the British plenipotentiary, and 
Kiying, the Chinese Commissioner. It provided for a new tariff at 
the five treaty ports, and for the general regulations of trade in those 
ports.2 It further provided that British merchants should be allowed 
to trade only at the five ports above mentioned.^ It also provides 
for the extradition of criminals and offenders against the law.'^ 

On the arrival of Caleb Cushing from the United States on Feb¬ 
ruary 24, 1844, an announcement was made to the Canton authori¬ 
ties of the general objects of his mission and of his orders to proceed 
to Peking. This information having been despatched to the capital, 
the Emperor with all haste appointed Kiying to negotiate a treaty 
with him at Canton. With as little delay as possible the pleni¬ 
potentiaries met, and without much controversy agreed to and 
signed a treaty on July 3, 1844, at Wanghia. This treaty gave the 
Americans the same rights to reside and trade at the same five 
ports which were specified in the British treaty.® But in this treaty 
nothing was said about the responsibility of the Consul in regard to 
the payment of the duties.® 

Monsieur de Lagrenee arrived from France in the following 
August; and again Kiying was nominated to represent the Chinese 
Emperor in the negotiations with him. No difficulties were raised 
on either side, and on October 23, 1844, the treaty of Whampoa was 
duly signed and sealed. The absence of the admixture of any 
trading disputes in the discussion of the treaty added to the ease 
with which it was concluded. But while the French plenipotentiary 
made light of trading privileges, he also advocated the cause of 
Christianity. Happily, at this juncture, a liberal view with regard 

2 Article i. 

3 Article 2. 

* Article 9. 

6 Article 3. 

^Chinese Repository, July-December, 1844, August, 1845; Foster, American 

Diplomacy in the Orient, p. 82 et seq. 


10 


Treaty Ports in China 

to religious matters prevailed at Peking, and in response to his rep¬ 
resentations an Imperial edict was proclaimed ordaining the tolera¬ 
tion of the Christian religion, as being one which inculcated the 
principles of virtue. In providing for the rights of Frenchmen to 
trade and reside in the same five ports, this treaty is almost the 
same as the American treaty. But its religious provision is not to 
be found in the British and American treaties.^ 

§ 2. The Treaty Port of Shanghai. 

When the treaty of Nanking was signed in 1842, Shanghai was 
included among the Four Ports in addition to Canton, and it was 
opened to foreign trade by a notification of Captain G. Butler, 
British Consul, of November 17, 1843. The question of “entry to 
the city,” which became so vital at Canton, did not come up at 
Shanghai, where the Consul, merchants, and missionaries all rented 
houses inside the city walls. However, the British Consul soon 
obtained land outside the walls for a settlement, and by the agree¬ 
ment of November 29, 1845, between the British Consul and the 
Taotai the boundaries of this settlement were defined to be, on the 
north the Soochow Creek, on the south the Yangkingpang, and on 
the east the harbor (the Hwangpu River). Nothing was said about 
the western boundary, but by the agreement of September 24, 1846, 
it was fixed at the 'Barrier Road’ (the present Honan Road), while 
by the agreement of November 27, 1848, it was extended to the 
Defence Creek.® Within this area the British authorities did not 
claim exclusive privileges for their subjects, and this ‘British Settle¬ 
ment’ was from the beginning open to all. 

By an agreement of April 6, 1849, the French Consul and the 
Taotai defined the boundaries of the French settlement to be the 
north side of the city on the south; the Yangkingpang, a creek 
separating it from the British settlement, on the north; the Hwangpu 
River on the east; and the line of the temple of the God of War and 
the bridge of the Chow family on the west. However, by acts of 
usurpation during the defense of Shanghai against Taiping Rebel¬ 
lion, “this area was extended to the south by the inclusion of the 
suburbs between the city wall and the river as far as the 
Little East Gate, and to the west as far as the line of the Defence 

7 34 British and Foreign State Papers, 1298 et seq.\ Williams, S. W., Middle Kingdom, 
vol. 2, p. 357 et seq. 

^North-China Herald, January 17 and February 28, 1852. 


II 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

Creek.”® This settlement has been known as ‘concession frangaise’. 
By the same agreement it was provided that “should persons of other 
nations wish to acquire land and build within the above limits, they 
must first apply to the French Consul, who will take the matter into 
consideration and act on their behalf.” This kind of provision was 
also written down in the agreement of the British settlement, by 
which the subjects or citizens of any nationality must first apply to 
the British Consul; but in practice this rule has never been observed. 
When the agreement relating to the French settlement was pub¬ 
lished, the American and British Consuls protested against the 
requirement that their nationals should apply before the French 
Consul, and they informed their nationals that their protection 
would be extended to their land wherever situated. 

“The American settlement was not created, but ‘just growed’.” 
The American merchants remained in the British settlement, but 
the Hongkew side across the Soochow Creek was more suitable for 
the purposes of repairing their merchant vessels. The Missions 
maintained chapels in the Chinese city, but for residential comfort 
they preferred Hongkew. When the first official Consul of the 
United States arrived at Shanghai in 1854 he hoisted his flag and 
established his residence on the American settlement, but this part 
of Shanghai remained without organization or police force until the 
refugees were fleeing into the settlement during the Taiping Rebel¬ 
lion. Furthermore, its boundaries were left undefined until it was 
incorporated with the British settlement to form the International 
settlement. 

The first land regulation for Shanghai was drawn up and put into 
force in 1845 by the British, American, and French Consuls. It 
(Article i) provided that on merchants renting ground, the local 
officers and the Consul must, in communication with each other, 
define its boundaries, clearly specify the number of poo and mow, 
and put up stone landmarks; and that where there were roads, or 
paths, these landmarks must be placed against the fence, so as not 
to occasion obstruction to passengers, that the Chinese were re¬ 
quired to report the transaction at the offices of the Intendant of 
Circuit, and of the Magistrate and Haifang of Shanghai, in order 
that they might address their high officers thereupon, while the 

9 Morse, International Relations, p. 348. 

10 Chinese Repository, June, 1849, 


12 


Treaty Ports in China 

merchants were to report to the Consul, so that the transaction 
might be put on record; and that the deed of the lessor renting 
out the land, and that of the lessee acknowledging the rent, were to 
be executed in the form of an indenture, and to be examined and 
sealed, after which the possession of the land was to be given to the 
proper parties. These precautions were taken in order to assure 
good faith and to prevent encroachment and usurpation. The regu¬ 
lation (Article 2) provided for the permanence of the large road 
along the bank of the river, which was a towing-path for the grain 
junks, and which had now become the far-famed ‘Bund’ of Shanghai, 
and (Article 3) laid down the direction of sundry main roads and 
the terms on which new roads should be constructed. It further 
fixed (Articles 7 and 8) the annual Government rental on all 
lands held by foreigners at fifteen hundred cash per mow, and 
(Article 12) recognized the duty of the foreign renters to “build 
and repair the stone and wooden bridges, keep in order and cleanse 
the streets and road, put up and light street lamps, establish fire- 
engines, plant trees to protect the roads, open ditches to drain off 
the water, and hire watchman.” 

Such were the rules under which the rising emporium was origin¬ 
ally constituted, and which were so harmoniously and efficiently 
carried out as to obtain for Shanghai the distinctive title of the 
‘Model Settlement’. As time went on, however, the sites which 
had been set apart for the residence of French and American citizens 
began to be gradually occupied, and the confusion which was 
superinduced by the occupation of the Chinese city by the forces 
of the Taiping rebels rendered an extension of systematic rules to 
the whole territory inhabited by foreigners absolutely indispensable. 
The three foreign Consuls, Messrs. Rutherford Alcock (British), 
Robert C. Murphy (United States), and B. Edan (French), united 
on July 5, 1854, notifying the foreign community that a new code 
of Municipal and Land Regulations had been devised, in concert 
with the Taotai of Shanghai. This significant document, forming 
the constitution under which foreigners at Shanghai were hence¬ 
forth to be governed in municipal matters was submitted to a public 
meeting of Land Renters on the nth of the same month. The 
character of these regulations, devised for the purpose of adminis¬ 
tering the self-government of a large community of foreigners of 

Land Regulation, 1845, see North-China Herald, January 17, 1852, 


13 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

diver nationalities who without such an expedient, could be con¬ 
trolled only by the separate action of their national representatives, 
has so important a bearing on the subsequent history of Shanghai 
that an outline must be given in this section. In the first place 
(Article i) the boundaries of the Settlements were defined. In 
providing for the mode of acquiring land (Articles 2, 3 and 4), 
the lessee or purchaser must first apply to the consul or consular- 
agent of his nation, or if there be none appointed, to the consul of 
any friendly power, and the said consul or consular-agent was 
thereupon to enquire whether there was any impediment by reason 
of previous negotiation or application by third parties or otherwise. 
Then it (Article 7) provided that an assessed annual rent or land 
tax should be paid to the Chinese Government on all land rented 
by foreigners within the said limits at the rate of fifteen hundred 
cash per mow. Further, provisions (Article 10) were made for 
roads, jetties, assessment on land and wharfage. It (Article 13) 
also provided that when any consul had discovered a breach of the 
regulations or should the local authorities address him thereon, he 
should in every case within his jurisdiction summon the offender 
before him, and if convicted punish him summarily in such man¬ 
ners as might seem just; and that should any foreigner, who had 
no consular authority at Shanghai, commit a breach of the said 
regulations, then, and in such case, the Chinese chief authority 
might be appealed to, by any one or more of the Foreign Consuls, 
to uphold the regulations in their integrity, and punish the party 
so infringing them. Finally (Article 14), it provided that in case 
of any necessary modification of these regulations or should it be 
necessary to determine on further rules, or should doubts arise as 
to the construction of, or powers conferred thereby, the same should 
be settled by the Foreign Consuls in cooperation with the Intendant 
of Circuit, and they must submit the same to the Chinese Imperial 
Commissioner managing the affairs at the five ports for approval.^^ 
The public meeting of July ii, 1854, at which the foregoing Regu¬ 
lations were formally propounded and accepted by the body of 
foreign land-renters, became a sort of Constituent Assembly, at 
which the future form of government was decided upon. It was 
determined by the votes of the meeting that “Residents be annually 
chosen by the votes of a public meeting, to be held in the month of 
^^North-China Herald, July 8, 1854. 


14 Treaty Ports in China 

March, to administer the affairs of the community, to be called the 
Municipal Council, and that it consists of a chairman and six 
members.” 

In this period the expectation and intention of all was that the 
entire body of foreign residents in Shanghai would combine to form 
a single body politic without regard to the theory of administration 
based on nationality. But international jealousies proved too strong 
for considerations of the general good, and as residents of many 
nationalities began gradually to settle within the French and Ameri¬ 
can settlements, the Consuls of these nations supported the theory 
of separate administration for each settlement. The consequence 
of this independent action was that while the British settlement, 
which comprised almost all of the wealth, population and trade, 
was comparatively well laid out, drained, and guarded, the settle¬ 
ments on either side remained for years in a condition of primitive 
wildness and insecurity. It was not until the events of later years 
brought a large Chinese population within the elastic limits of the 
French settlement that its Municipal Council was placed in pos¬ 
session of funds enabling it to carry out works of draining and road¬ 
making such as had long been in progress within the British limits, 
nor was it until 1863 that the American settlement was formally 
incorporated with the British for all municipal purposes. 

By Article 15 of the Shanghai Land Regulations of 1845 “native 
inhabitants” were prohibited from selling or renting land or houses 
to other Chinese, and by Article 16 foreigners were prohibited 
from “building houses for renting to, or for the use of Chinese.” 
But these prohibited articles were omitted in the Land Regulations 
of 1854, and, “in fact, their enforcement was no longer within the 
power either of governments or of individuals.” When the Taiping 
Rebellion extended to the vicinity of Shanghai the population of 
the neighborhood fled to the settlements for refuge, as they were 
declared to be neutral ground. So on February 24, 1855, the Taotai 
and the foreign consuls agreed that: “Whereas, no Chinese can 
acquire land, or rent, or erect buildings within the foreign settlement, 
without having first obtained an authority under official seal from 
the local authority, sanctioned by the consuls of the Three Treaty 
Powers, it has been decided that the following course shall be ob¬ 
served by any Chinese desiring to rent ground or houses within the 
said limits: Chinese subject is to apply through the lessor to the les- 


15 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

sor’s consul, and he must also provide two wealthy householders as 
sureties and also stipulate that he will conform strictly to the land 
regulations, and contribute his share to any general assessments.” 

Regulations were made in 1847 to guard against accident or colli¬ 
sion of vessels, and to give security to vessels loading and discharging 
goods at Shanghai. These regulations of April 4, 1847 were agreed 
upon by the British Consul and the Intendant of Circuit for the 
anchorage for British vessels extending from Soochow Creek to the 
Yangkingpang. Article i provided for a passage on the east side of 
the river in order to afford free communication for vessels of all 
nations, consequently, this article limited the boundary where 
British vessels might anchor. Article 2 secured a free passage to the 
custom-house for cargo boats, and along the west shore for the 
towing of the grain junks. Article 3 required vessels to be moored 
within the period of two tides from the time of their arrival at the 
anchorage, and after mooring no vessel could move or shift her 
berth without permission from the British Consul. Article 4 
provided that when there were more than fifteen vessels anchoring 
there, each vessel must be moored head and stern with two anchors, 
in order to prevent collision in swinging and to provide space for 
an increased number of vessels. Article 5 provided that the masters 
before beaching their vessels for repair or inspection must secure 
the instruction of the British Consulate. Article 6 regulating the 
landing, shipping, or trans-shipping of goods. Article 7 prohibited 
the discharge of firearms from merchant vessels in the anchorage. 
Article 8 required the report of all cases of death on board a 
vessel in the anchorage at the British Consulate together with the 
best information attainable as to the cause of death in cases of 
sudden demise. Article 9 placed the responsibility for the conduct 
of the crew on shore on the masters, and that seamen were not 
allowed to go on shore without a responsible officer. Article 10 
provided that accidents or violence within the limits of the anchor¬ 
age, involving personal injury, loss of life, or property, from the 
collision of vessels or other causes, must be reported at the British 
Consulate as soon as practicable, and in cases of theft or assault in 
which any individuals belonging to the ship in the anchorage and 
Chinese were both concerned, “a Chinese, if in the wrong, and there 
be no officer of his country at hand, may be conveyed to the British 

^^North-China Herald, March 24, 1855. 


16 Treaty Ports in China 

Consul, who will proceed to investigate the extent of the offense 
and accordingly proceed against him.” Article 11 secured the same 
privilege for vessels of all nations to anchor within the limits, but 
they were subject to the same regulations as British vessels. Article 
12 provided for the modification and interpretation of the regula¬ 
tions through settlement by the British and Chinese authorities. 
Article 13 provided for the punishment of those who had violated 
these regulations.^^ 

Following this another regulation for the Port of Shanghai was 
passed in September 24, 1851, through the combined action of the 
foreign consuls and the Intendant of Circuit. It (Article i) defined 
the boundaries of the anchorage for foreign vessels to be on the 
north, a straight line running directly east from the southern bank 
of the Wusung-kiang (Suchau Creek) at low water mark, into the 
stream of the Hwangpu River. It also provided that buoys were 
to be placed at the northern and southern extremities of the an¬ 
chorage, in order to establish the line of boundary, and it was to be 
obligatory upon all vessels to anchor within the defined limits, and 
not on any account to pass so far on to the eastern bank of the river 
as to obstruct the general navigation; that a free passage moreover 
was to be maintained along the western bank of the stream to 
facilitate the passage of cargo boats to and fro, and the examination 
of goods, and to leave a way for the towing of the grain junks up 
and down the river. Then it (Article 2) provided that a harbor¬ 
master should be appointed, whose duty was to berth all foreign 
ships arriving at the anchorage of Shanghai, and to superintend 
their mooring and unmooring and to take them safely out when 
ready to depart, and his permission must be secured before any 
vessel could shift its berth and his directions as to mooring of ves¬ 
sels under every flag without distinction were to be strictly followed. 
Then it (Article 3) provided that no vessel or boat under any 
foreign flag, and no Chinese junk or boat having a cargo of gun¬ 
powder or other combustibles on board, should be permitted to 
anchor among the foreign vessels or in their near vicinity, ships-of- 
war of course excepted. Then it (Article 4) provided that “no 
citizen or subject of any foreign state shall be allowed to open either 
boarding or eating-house for sailors at the port, without the express 
authority of the consular representative to whom he may be en- 

Chinese Repository, vol. i6, pp. 361-363. 


17 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

titled to apply, nor without good security that such party shall give 
no harbor to any seaman who is a deserter, or who cannot produce 
his discharge accompanied by the written sanction of the said 
consul for his residence on shore. Every boarding or eating-house 
keeper will further be held responsible for the good conduct of all 
who come to his house.” It also provided that no Chinese subject 
under any pretense whatever should be permitted to open either 
grog-shop or boarding-house for foreign sailors to drink, debauch, 
and gamble in; but that they would not be restricted however from 
keeping shops for selling provisions and sundries, or any other 
legitimate articles of merchandise to the natives. Finally it (Article 
5) provided that no sailors from a foreign vessel could be discharged 
or left behind at this port without the express sanction of the consul 
reporting the vessel, nor until good and sufficient security was to 
have been given for his maintenance and good behavior while 
remaining on shore. 

During this period aliens at Shanghai enjoyed perfect security 
in life and freedom in action, and they were given the freedom of 
movement in the neighborhood of Shanghai with only a limitation 
that they should be able to return to Shanghai within the same day. 
Unfortunately, some regrettable incident might happen, as when 
the Rev. W. M. Lowrie, an American missionary, on the 19th of 
August, 1847, came to a sudden and violent death by the hands of 
pirates near Chapu. It was recorded that his boat was pursued by 
a piratical boat of the class designated by the Chinese the ‘broad 
bow sanpan’, after having proceeded some 40 li from Chapu. 
On the approach of these pirates, Mr. Lowrie waved a small Ameri¬ 
can flag and for this his boat received a volley from the pirates as a 
reply. When the pirates boarded, searched and plundered the boat, 
Mr. Lowrie declared that if they robbed him of his effects, he must 
report them to the officers of the government. The pirates became 
angry when they heard this, and several of them seized hold of Mr. 
Lowrie and hurled him overboard. As the waves were running high 
and he was several miles from land, he quickly perished. After 
some delay, nine principals of the piratical horde were arrested. 
Three of them were decapitated with their heads hanging in a cage 
upon a pole for public view, and the remaining six were sentenced 
to banishment as slaves to the military officers on the Sinkiang 

15 Ihid., vol. 20, pp. 558-559* 


i8 


Treaty Ports in China 

border. The peaceful and friendly manner in which this case was 
settled through diplomatic correspondence causes it to form a 
notable contrast with a case soon afterwards occurring where several 
Englishmen were assaulted in the vicinity of Shanghai.^® 

On the 8th of March, 1848, a party of English missionaries, con¬ 
sisting of Messrs. Medhurst, Lockhart, and Muirhead, went on a 
journey to Tsing-pu, about 90 li from Shanghai, for the purpose 
of distributing tracts. Messrs. Muirhead and Lockhart had visited 
that city several times previously, and it being within the distance 
that could be reached and the return to Shanghai effected within 
twenty-four hours, it was considered to be within the limits assigned 
by the British Consular Regulations. On their arrival at the city, 
the missionaries proceeded, as was their custom, to distribute tracts 
which is generally done from house to house among persons who 
appear to be able to read. While they were thus engaged, a number 
of Shantung men, who navigate the grain junks, belonging to 
Tsing-pu, came up behind pushing and striving to get a larger 
number of the books than would fall to their share, and also throw¬ 
ing stones. Mr. Lockhart looked after the books while the other 
two missionaries distributed the literature; but in defending the 
property, he injured one of the men with his walking stick, and upon 
this the other navigators of the grain junks began to make a noise, 
and throw stones, threatening further mischief. Mr. Medhurst 
succeeded in driving them away, by threatening to hand the ring¬ 
leaders over to the magistrate; but when having distributed the 
books, the missionaries passed out at the east gate, on their way 
home, they had not gone half a mile from the city before they heard 
a number of people hooting after them and threatening to beat 
them, and before they could say anything, they were attacked and 
rather severely beaten. They were also plundered of their watches, 
spectacles, caps and clothes, and were forced to turn back towards 
the city. The grain junk men, by whom the attack was made, had 
one by one slunk away, and on entering the city the missionaries, 
who had been joined by a number of people, were conducted to the 
magistrate, who manifested the utmost sympathy with them. The 
magistrate invited them to the visitor’s apartment, and asking 
them to sit down, inquired into the affair. Being informed of the 
circumstances from beginning to end, he promised that the stolen 

Chinese Repository, vol. 16, pp. 567, 607-610; and vol. 17, pp. 484-486. 


19 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

articles should be returned, and that the men who committed the 
outrage should be punished. Having then provided chairs and 
boats to carry them back to their own boats, he despatched two 
military and two civil officers to escort them and to protect them 
from further harm. In this way they returned to their boat, which 
was five miles from the city, and finally reached their homes in 
safety.^^ The British Consul, Mr. Rutherford Alcock demanded 
prompt redress; but there was some delay which was due not to 
negligence on the part of the officials but to the fact that they were 
not dealing with law-abiding inhabitants, but with a band of not 
less than thirteen thousand grain-junk men, who were about to be 
deprived of their occupation, and who were too powerful for the 
Chinese officials to control. Five days having elapsed since the 
occurrence of the incident, the British Consul, who had no sym¬ 
pathy with the awkward position of the Chinese officials, informed 
the Taotai that he would stop the payment of duties by British 
vessels until full satisfaction was secured; and he further proclaimed 
that no grain junks would be permitted to leave Shanghai. This 
risky course was adopted with the cordial approval of the whole 
alien community. Not being able to secure a satisfactory result, 
the British Consul on the 19th sent the man-of-war Espiegle, with 
Vice-consul Robertson and Interpreter Parkes on board, to Nanking. 
There they took up the matter with the Viceroy, who promptly 
despatched I, the acting commissioner of justice, and Wu, the in- 
tendant in waiting, to hold an assize at Tsingpu. The Shanghai 
Taotai was made a scapegoat and removed from office. As a result 
of the investigation, ten criminals were brought to Shanghai for 
trial. These ten offenders, in the presence of the British Consul, 
the injured parties, all the local authorities, and a large number of 
assistants, were put in the cangue on the spot, to which punish¬ 
ment they were sentenced for a month, and they were exposed 
during that period in the public thoroughfare as a warning to the 
public.^® 

Being satisfied with the redress, the British Consul removed the 
embargo on the grain junks and ordered that all the duties should 
be paid as heretofore, and with this notification the trouble was 
brought to an end. 

Ibid., vol. 17, pp. 151-156. 

vol. 17, pp. 310-311, 319-320, 403-406, 409-411. 


20 


Treaty Ports in China 


The action of the alien representative in this case was really too 
rash and unreasonable, and if the Nanking authorities were as hot¬ 
headed, it might have involved the two nations in one more bloody 
war. A competent authority said: 

Mr. Bonham, within the week in which he entered on the duties of his post 
of governor of Hongkong, reported that he “conceived Mr. Alcock had ex¬ 
ceeded the just limits of his authority;” and he wrote to Mr. Alcock: “I feel 
more strongly than ever the necessity of discouraging any offensive opera¬ 
tions, which may embroil the two nations in hostilities, without the previous 
sanction of H. M. government.” Lord Palmerston approved of “the decision 
taken and the course pursued by Mr. Alcock,” but added that, though the 
government approved, “yet this case must be considered as an exception to 
a rule, and not as a precedent for future guidance.” 

Following this incident, the British Consul issued a notification 
regarding the prescribed limits in Shanghai which aliens were 
allowed to penetrate into the country. In the note he said that 
among the foreigners there were certain British subjects who made 
excursions in direct violation of Article 6 of the Supplementary 
Treaty of October 8, 1843,^® and that such proceedings could only 
tend to place the British Government in a false position with the 
Chinese authorities. He exhorted them to set the example of scrup¬ 
ulous respect for the Treaties under which they claimed advantages 
often repugnant to the Chinese. Further, he said that whatever 
might be the advantages anticipated from a freer access into the 
interior, they were not to be won by acts proving to both govern¬ 
ments that British subjects were not to be restrained by any regard 
to the obligations of Treaties, or the authority of their own Sov¬ 
ereign. In conclusion he said: “H. M.’s Consul would appeal to the 
good sense and good feeling of the British community generally to 
prevent the recurrence of acts so mischievous in their tendency and 
objectionable in every sense. But it is his duty also publicly to 
notify all British subjects that he will take the most effective means 
to exonerate H. M.’s government from all suspicion of tacitly sanc¬ 
tioning or conniving at similar violations of the provisions of the 
Treaty, and spare no exertion to ensure the conviction of any parties 
who may be found wilfully offending.” 

19 Morse, International Relations, pp. 393-394. 

20 31 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 132. 

21 Chinese Repository, vol. 17, pp. 317-318. 


21 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

§ j. The Treaty Port of Ningpo. 

The opening of Ningpo as a treaty port was based on its past 
history as a trading station for the Portuguese and the English. 
The first notice of Portuguese trade at Ningpo occurs about 1522, 
that is, a few years after the expulsion of the Portuguese from the 
coasts of Kwang-tung, in consequence of the atrocious conduct of 
which they had there shown themselves guilty. Permission appears 
to have been tacitly given by the Chinese local authorities for an 
establishment at the mouth of the Yung, to which the name of 
Liampo (Ningpo) was given by the Portuguese. Here the commerce 
was very prosperous, and it might have developed into a central 
commercial port, had not the unbridled rapaciousness of the Portu¬ 
guese again brought vengeance, and destruction upon a rising 
colony. It is related that one Lancerote Pereira, a man in official 
authority, distinguished himself by acts of lawless plunder perpe¬ 
trated upon the surrounding villages, whence he and his associates 
carried off not only the property, but also the wives and daughters 
of the inhabitants. In 1542, when complaints were made to the 
governor of the province, he ordered that the settlement should be 
destroyed and its population exterminated, and this command was 
forthwith obeyed. The community consisted at this period of three 
thousand male adults, besides women and children, and of these 
1,200 Portuguese. When this order was carried out 800 of the 
Portuguese were massacred, and twenty-five Portuguese ships and 
forty-two junks were destroyed. 

The next attempt at commercial relations with this part of China 
was made by the East India Company towards the end of the 
Seventeenth Century. Chusan, lying opposite the river Yung and 
at a distance of about forty miles from Ningpo, was the nearest 
point at which the foreign merchants were permitted to reside. The 
East India Company’s factory at Chusan was not, however, con¬ 
tinued later than 1703, the trial being found unsatisfactory, and for 
upwards of a century and a quarter after this date Ningpo was 
visited only by two or three foreign vessels, dispatched at long 
intervals on experimental cruises. The last of these voyages was 
performed by the Lord Amherst, fitted out at the expense of the 
East India Company and conducted up the coast in 1832 from 
Canton by Mr. Lindsay and the Rev. C. Gutzlaff. The local 


22 


Treaty Ports in China 

authorities of Ningpo had, however, a determined refusal to all 
proposals for the establishment of trade. 

When next the waters of the Yung were disturbed by foreign 
keels, it was under very different circumstances to those attending 
the peaceful voyage of the Lord Amherst. The hostilities which 
broke out between Great Britain and China in 1839 at Canton 
were spread northward to Nanking. Ningpo was captured and 
occupied by a British garrison on October 13, 1841, without meeting 
any resistance from the Chinese troops there. Valuable booty was 
obtained from the public treasuries, but private property was 
respected. This military occupation lasted until May 7, 1842, when 
the entire expedition began to move northwards for the capture of 
Chapu, Wusung, and Chinkiang. 

Peace having been proclaimed in August, 1842, and Ningpo 
included in the list of ports henceforward open to trade, the city 
became accessible to European residents, of whom the pioneer was 
the Rev. W. C. Milne. This zealous missionary, who had been for 
some time a resident of Chusan, removed to Ningpo in December 
1842, and was for many months the only foreigner in or near the 
city. In December 1843, Mr. Robert Thom was despatched to 
Ningpo as the first British Consul, and the location for foreign 
residences was placed on the north bank of the river, opposite to 
the city. Foreign trade was less rapid in its development than had 
been anticipated at the outset, the proximity of Shanghai having 
an unfavorable influence on the direction of both exports and im¬ 
ports, but a considerable settlement was nevertheless formed here 
in the course of a few years. In 1857 attention was attracted to the 
port through a repetition of the massacre of Portuguese, whose 
acts, after a lapse of three centuries, had again drawn down upon 
themselves the vengeance of the injured natives. For several years 
previously, dorchas’ or Chinese junks rigged in European fashion, 
and manned principally by half-castes from Macao, had been pro¬ 
tected by the Portuguese flag in the commission of numerous 
piratical outrages, whilst the appeals of the local authorities to the 
individual acting as Portuguese Consul remained unheeded. The 
ostensible occupation of these vessels was the ‘convoying’ of Chinese 
junks as a protection against pirates, in which capacity they exerted 
a fierce rivalry with native convoying craft manned by Cantonese, 
but their crews in addition were constantly accused of the most 


The First Five Treaty Ports 


23 


lawless acts of depredation both ashore and afloat. At length, on 
June 25, 1857, a large fleet of Cantonese junks made their appear¬ 
ance off Ningpo, and took possession of the Portuguese florchas.’ 
The crews escaped to the shore, but were pursued with revengeful 
fury by the Cantonese, who slaughtered some forty of their number, 
and completely sacked the house of the Portuguese Consul, who 
fled for refuge to the Roman Catholic Mission buildings. This 
tragical outbreak put a stop to the operations of the Portuguese at 
Ningpo.22 The next event of importance in connection with the 
history of the port of Ningpo was the capture of the Chinese city 
by the Taiping rebels in December, 1861. The northern half of the 
Province had already been overrun by the insurgents, and on 
November 9 the important city of Shaohing Fu, distant some 90 
miles from Ningpo, had fallen into their hands. The intermediate 
district towns were successively captured, and the insurgent leaders 
addressed themselves to the foreign consuls resident at Ningpo, 
calling upon them to remain neutral during the impending capture 
of the city, with assurances that no injury should befall the foreign 
residents. In fact, whilst the Imperial authorities looked on in a 
state of helpless terror, the insurgents were determined upon strain¬ 
ing every nerve for the purpose of obtaining possession of a seaport, 
through which they might receive supplies of arms and ammunition 
for the prosecution of their conquering career in the remaining parts 
of China. Foreign merchants, animated by the prospect of large 
profits, were not slow to stimulate the insurgent leaders in the pros¬ 
ecution of their designs. The result is summed up in the following 
extract from an official report by Mr. Harry Parkes: 

Ningpo fell to the rebels on the morning of the 9th of December; they 
had long been expected, and by foreign assistance the city had been placed 
in a complete state of defense, for it appeared to a Chinese foe to be almost 
impregnable; a broad and rapid river running under its walls on two sides, 
whilst on the remaining or land side it was also protected by deep and broad 
canals crossed in two places only by the cross-ways which lead to the South 
and West Gates. Six heavy foreign guns besides light artillery commanded 
each of these causeways, and rendered them, as it was supposed, impassable. 
The garrison numbered between 3,000 and 4,000 men. 

The rebels appear to have seen little to fear in these preparations, and to 
have been only anxious to ascertain that they would not have to contend 

22 G. Wingrove Cooke, China: being The Times Special Correspondence from China 
in the years 1857-1858, pp. 130-158. 


24 


Treaty Ports in China 

with foreigners in arms; they were moving on the city on the 2nd of Decem¬ 
ber, and when only ten miles from it, agreed on receiving a foreign request 
to delay the attack for a week. On the 8th they advanced some parties up 
to the city walls, and on the 9th at 7 a. m., when the week allowed had just 
expired, they crossed the causeway at the South Gate, escaladed with three 
common ladders taken from the cottages close by, and at 8 a. m., the whole 
city, which is four miles in circumference, was in their possession. 

From the first moment of their entry into the city, the rebels dis¬ 
played great anxiety to remain on good terms with foreigners of all 
nations, and refrained from attacking or molesting in any way the 
various Protestant and Roman Catholic missionary establishments 
within the walls. An active trade in arms and rice at once sprang 
up, silk and other merchandise being exchanged for these neces¬ 
saries, but notwithstanding the usual efforts on the part of the rebel 
chiefs to preserve order among their soldiery, the city was deserted 
by its population, which fled en masse to swell the flood of refugees 
then inundating the foreign settlements at Shanghai, or to seek 
shelter among the European dwellings on the north bank of the 
river opposite Ningpo. 

The British and French naval officers commanding the vessels of 
war lying in the river were directed to protect this tract of land from 
any invasion by the insurgents; whilst at the same time stringent 
measures were taken as far as possible to prevent British subjects 
from supplying the rebels with munitions of war. Early in 1862 a 
vessel {the Paragon) was seized with a large cargo of guns and other 
warlike 'stores which were confiscated, and these measures among 
others, contributed to disturb the tenor of the official relations 
which had been carried on with the rebel chiefs in occupation of 
the city. Complaints were made of the random discharge of musket- 
shots in the direction of the foreign settlement and the foreign ships 
of war, and certain demands including the disarmament of a rebel 
battery commanding the river and the giving of satisfactory guar¬ 
antees of good conduct on the part of the rebels during their future 
proceedings at Ningpo were made by the British and French 
authorities. The replies to these demands were considered unsatis¬ 
factory, and further provocation was given on the morning of the 
loth of May, 1862 by a discharge of musketry from the city walls 
in the direction of H.M.S. Encounter. Her commander, Captain 
Roderick Dew, at once gave the signal to clear for action, and a 


25 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

general bombardment of the city at once commenced from all the 
vessels of war, both English and French, then lying in the river. 
At the end of five hours the walls were scaled and the Taiping forces 
retreated from Ningpo. The Imperial authorities, who, in expec¬ 
tation of this result, had for some time past been residing in the 
foreign settlement, were at once put in possession of the city. Since 
this period no event of striking importance had occurred, the in¬ 
terval had been occupied in the gradual restoration of the inhabi¬ 
tants to their homes and of commerce to its accustomed channels. 
For upwards of a year subsequently to its recapture, indeed, Ningpo 
was the seat of operations directed towards the capture and recovery 
of the remaining cities of the Province of Chekiang from the hands 
of the insurgents. 

The site occupied by foreign residences is the promontory formed 
at the junction of the two rivers opposite the northern face of the 
city, and hence is known as the Pih Ngan or North Bank. The 
foreign consular and mercantile establishments occupy two sides of 
this promontory, viz., the line of river bank opposite to the city, 
and the line at right angle to the former which extends in the direc¬ 
tion of the sea. Two frontages of about a mile each in length are 
thus occupied, but no special limits for European residences have 
ever been defined. The following remarks upon the settlement 
occur in Mr. Consul Fittock’s Official Report for 1864: 

Except along the harbor face, land is not costly. A large tract in the center 
of the settlement is owned by foreigners, and through this a rough straight 
riding-course has been constructed, forty feet wide and a mile long, and this 
forms the chief resort of foreigners in search of exercise. The general roads 
in the town are the old Chinese, badly-paved and filthy lanes, common to 
their cities and suburbs, the march of improvement having by no means 
kept pace with the increasing importance of the trade. 

Previously to the rebel capture of Ningpo, the northern bank 
of the river was but thinly populated with Chinese residents, the 
water frontage being occupied principally by timber yards, inter¬ 
spersed with the dwellings and compounds of the foreign residents. 
In 1862 the large influx of refugees from the city to the north bank, 
which remained under the protection of the foreign vessels of war, 
caused the native streets and lanes to be largely extended. The 
British Consulate stands at a little distance from the river-bank, 
opposite the Salt Gate of the city, on which account the river flow- 


26 


Treaty Ports in China 

ing past the walls at this point is frequently termed by foreigners 
the ‘Consulate Creek’. The United States and French Consulates 
also face the city. 

Owing to the comparative insignificance of the trade at this place, 
the foreign community is by no means large. In 1865 the following 
mercantile establishments, commission agencies, and stores were 
enumerated: British, 43; German, 5; United States, 2; French, 
I. The total number of foreign residents, exclusive of missionaries, 
does not exceed sixty. But since that year, the influx of disorderly 
characters of all nations has necessitated the institution of a small 
police force, consisting of some three or four constables, whose wages 
are defrayed by the community, and who hand over any prisoners 
arrested to the consuls of their respective nations. 

§ 4. The Treaty Port of Foochow. 

Attention having been at an early period drawn to Foochow as 
an advantageous shipping port for the black tea grown in its neigh¬ 
borhood, it was included among the ports declared open to foreign 
trade in 1842. In June, 1844, Mr. Tradescant Lay was despatched 
thither as the first British Consul, but he had to fight through the 
question of the rights of aliens to enter the city. The Viceroy, 
Liu Yun-ko, was believed to be an enemy of the aliens, and stood 
up strongly against the opening of the port. Furthermore, the 
Manchus, who formed the garrison of the city, were certain to resent 
the disgrace cast upon their arms, and besides the natives were as 
hot-headed and turbulent as the Cantonese. So the British Consul 
had to face these opposing forces very carefully, and the actual 
opening of the port was not secured until the end of February, 1845, 
when Mr. Davis, the British plenipotentiary, carried through his 
demand for the observance of the treaty-right by threatening to 
withdraw the Consul altogether 

Following the entrance of the aliens into the city, Mr. Rutherford 
Alcock, the British Consul, on April 26, 1845, gave notice that the 
following trade regulations must be observed in the port of Foochow: 
The limits of the port of Foochow were declared (Article i) to extend 
from the bridge to the Wufu Mun. The Chinese officer at the station 
within the pass was invested (Article 2) with the power to provide 
any vessel, desiring to enter the port, with a pilot. British vessels 

23 J. F. Davis, China Since the Peace, vol. 2, pp. 51, 115, 117. 


27 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

were permitted (Article 3) to remain in the port with a view to 
ascertain the state of the market without restriction as to time, and 
should they desire to depart without breaking bulk, no port dues 
were to be demanded; but the Captain was in all cases required to 
deliver his ship’s papers, bills of lading, and other documents, into 
the hands of the Consul within twenty-four hours after arrival. The 
payment of duties was (Article 4) to be made either in sycee or 
coined money at the rates already established at Canton. Cargoes 
(Article 5) were to be loaded and discharged between sunrise and 
sunset; and sailors on liberty (Article 6) were to be accompanied 
by an officer or responsible person, and strictly enjoined to abstain 
from all acts calculated to give offense to the inhabitants, injunc¬ 
tions to the same effect having been issued by the Chinese authorities 
to the people of Foochow Fu.^"* 

The first years of intercourse with the natives were marked by 
successive outbursts of turbulence, commencing with a serious riot 
in March, 1846, when a mob of natives, assembled for an attack 
on some Cantonese connected with the foreign residents, forcibly 
entered and plundered the houses of several aliens, for whom an 
indemnity of some $46,000 was eventually exacted from the local 
authorities. Complaints of insult and outrage in individual cases 
continued to be frequent in ensuing years, nor, as has been remarked 
above, is the antagonistic attitude of the populace towards Euro¬ 
peans yet subdued. Besides as a commercial port, Foochow was 
then considered as being valueless, and at first there were proposals 
for giving it up for an exchange of Wenchow. In 1850, Mr. Bonham, 
the British plenipotentiary, proposed to exchange Foochow and 
Ningpo for Hangchow, Soochow, and Chinkiang, three inland ports, 
but this was nothing more than a proposal, and the ports were never 
exchanged. This condition existed until 1853 when active measures 
were taken for the extension of the trade of the port. This was 
largely due to the fact that the tea trade could not be shipped to 
Shanghai or Canton on its ordinary route for export, as those com¬ 
munications were blocked up by the Taiping insurgents. So in that 
year an energetic American firm opened a connection, by means of 
native agents, with the interior tea-districts, and made extensive 
shipments to New York of the same description of teas which were 
formerly carried across the mountains to Shanghai or Canton. The 

24 Chinese Repository, vol. 14, p. 247. 


28 


Treaty Ports in China 

enterprise proved to be successful, and the same venture was re¬ 
peated by others in the following year, and from this period the 
export trade in tea steadily increased. 

Owing principally to its position, Foochow escaped capture or 
disturbance by insurgents during the prevalence of the Taiping 
Rebellion, though fears for the safety of the city had more than 
once been felt. These apprehensions led to a request on the part 
of the authorities in 1865 for the assistance of British officers for the 
institution of a body of troops in the use of foreign arms. For this 
purpose a camp of instruction was formed, and several hundred 
of Tartar soldiers were very creditably drilled. All fear of a rebel 
attack was dissipated, however, with the destruction of the last 
remnants of the Taiping insurgents in February, 1866. 

The residences of the European community are scattered over 
the hilly ground which rises on the south bank of the Min, opposite 
the little island of Chung-chow, and communicating with it and with 
the city by means of the ‘Big Bridge’. The British Consulate, com¬ 
prising then several detached buildings, lies not far from the water’s 
edge, and almost immediately opposite the foot of the Bridge. On 
either side of these buildings, and for a considerable distance to the 
rear, lie the ‘compounds’ or enclosures containing the mercantile 
establishments of the British and foreign residents, dispersed with¬ 
out settled plan, but connected by irregular roads and paths. 

§ 5. The Treaty Port of Amoy. 

Europeans began to trade at Amoy very soon after their appear¬ 
ance in China. In 1544, the Portuguese resorted to it in large 
numbers, but in consequence of their ill-conduct towards the native 
traders and country people, the authorities forcibly expelled them, 
burning thirteen ships, and killed about 450 Portuguese residing 
there. But the foreign commerce at this port was again revived by 
the English and Portuguese, who sent vessels thither as late as 1730, 
when the Chinese government centered all the foreign trade at 
Canton, and only permitted Spanish ships to trade at Amoy. Other 
foreigners continued for many years nevertheless to hold intercourse 
with this port. Their presence, however, was not acknowledged 
until its capture on the 27th of August, 1841, under Lieut.-General 
Sir Hugh Gough and Rear-Admiral Sir W. Parker. 

26 J. F. Davis, China Since the Peace, vol. 2, pp. 34, 104; North-China Herald, Feb¬ 
ruary 18, 1854; Chinese Repository, vol. 15, p. 479. 


29 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

By the treaty of Nanking of 1842, Amoy was thrown open to 
foreign trade, and it was formally opened by the arrival of the 
British Consul in June, 1844. The island of Kulangsu, which bounds 
the western side of the harbor, may be termed the ‘foreign settle¬ 
ment’ of Amoy. This island became the foreign residential quarter 
without any special grant from the Chinese authorities. The in¬ 
habitants of this island were as a rule very civil to foreigners, and 
it was said that there was no danger to walk about the island at 
any hour of the day or night. The roads were well made and main¬ 
tained at the expense of the foreign community. 

Although as a residence Amoy was far less preferable than 
Kulangsu, a few firms, some of the missionaries, and the consulate 
officers still transact business on the Amoy side; but in most cases 
their private residences were on the island of Kulangsu. 

§ 6 . The Treaty Port of Canton. 

By the treaty of Nanking of 1842 Canton was declared as one of 
the'treaty ports’ for foreign trade. But the natives continued to be 
hostile to foreigners, and attempted to restrict the aliens within the 
boundaries of the old factory. Even as late as 1846, the common 
people and gentry of the great metropolis were threatening against 
foreigners in case they entered the walls of the city. Foreigners 
were prevented from having houses rented within the city walls, 
and some of those unfortunate landlords who leased their real estate 
to aliens were thrown into prison on the ground, that they refused 
to eject the lessee.^® 

As a consequence of the determination of the natives to block 
the attempt of the aliens to secure an entrance into the city, the 
result was disastrous to life and property. As early as December 
7, 1842, the spirit of hostility was demonstrated through the form 
of mob violence. On that very day 170 lascars came on shore leaves 
from the ships at Whampoa to the factories with no one to control 
them. In the morning there was a brawl which soon led to a street 
riot. As the mob increased in size very rapidly so they took refuge 
in the factories. Then the mob attacked the easternmost factories 
with the result that several factories were burnt down by midnight. 
During this attack there was no plundering, but on the next day 
pillaging began, which was promptly crushed by the Chinese troops. 

Chinese Repository, June-November, 1846. 


30 


Treaty Ports in China 


The Viceroy, who was very friendly to the aliens, took prompt 
action, and ten of the ringleaders were decapitated, and an indem¬ 
nity of $267,000 was paid for the destruction of the property 3 ^ 

This spirit of hostility continued, and in 1844 another riot was 
recorded in the history of Canton. In this year a flagstaff was 
erected in the American ‘garden’ of the Canton factories in front 
of the American Consulate. The arrow, serving as its vane, was 
held by the natives to be the cause of the epidemic then prevailing. 
When this was explained to the Consul, he promptly ordered the 
vane to be removed. Notwithstanding this, a mob on June 15 
attacked several Americans while walking in the American ‘garden’ 
with brickbats, and the latter were “compelled to have recourse to 
firearms, in defense of their lives against the violence of a mob of 
ladrones or desperadoes,” and in the course of the affray, a native 
was killed. In the diplomatic correspondence between Mr. Cushing, 
the American Minister, and Kiying, the Chinese plenipotentiary 
resident at Canton, the latter struck the keynote of his difficult 
position and expressed the opinion that the victim’s life might pos¬ 
sibly have been taken without just cause, and that the Cantonese 
would probably demand a life for a life taken. This case was tried 
by the Consul with a jury of six American residents of Canton, and 
the jury was of the opinion that “the killing was a justifiable act of 
self-defense.” This case was finally settled by the payment of a 
compensation by the officials to the claimants.^® 

All the above troubles were caused by the aliens in their demand 
for an entrance into the city. This right of entry was based upon 
the treaty of Nanking under Article 2, on which “British subjects, 
with their families and establishments, shall be allowed to reside, 
for the purpose of carrying on their mercantile pursuits, without 
molestation or restraint, at the cities of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, 
Ningpo, and Shanghai.”-® This interpretation was accepted by 
Kiying as on July, 1843, he wrote to Sir H. Pottinger that, as the 
cities at the other ports might be entered, he saw no reason for any 
exception at Canton, but “the trouble is that the temper of the 
people of Kwangtung is unlike that of the people of Chekiang and 
Kiangnan . . . unsettled in mind by the war, they are easily 

27 Ibid., December, 1842. 

Chinese Repository, October-November, 1845, June, 1846, October, 1847. 

29 30 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 398. 


The First Five Treaty Ports ' 31 

accessible to doubts and suspicions,” and that he was busily engaged 
in removing this unreasonable suspicion, but he added that they 
must exercise patience for some time. Subsequently, the British 
plenipotentiary demanded the execution of the stipulation in the 
treaty of Nanking, but to every demand a reply of placards from 
the gentry was given announcing their undying resolution to resist 
the attempt. In order to calm down this opposition, Kiying, the 
plenipotentiary and Viceroy, and Hwang Ngan-tung, governor of 
Kwangtung, issued a joint proclamation on January 13, 1846. 
“You (natives) ought” said the proclamation, “to consider that the 
two nations, England and China are now on friendly terms, and that 
the august Emperor, with equal benevolence, views as one the 
people of both the foreign and the inner lands, making no difference 
between them. Moreover at all the five free ports—except at Amoy, 
where there are no walls, namely, at Fuchow, Ningpo, and Shanghai 
—the English are permitted to enter the cities, and no troubles have 
ensued. It is hard that Canton alone should offer obstructions and 
opposition,” and in conclusion the proclamation said, “Let dis¬ 
tinctions be put away by every one; let all lay aside their suspicions, 
and never again, as before, raise opposition. Thus they will main¬ 
tain peace and friendly relations . . . Let each one perform his 

duty, and yield implicit obedience. Let no one oppose.” 

This proclamation, however, was immediately burnt and turned 
down during the night, so that at daylight scarcely a shred of it 
remained. In its place a placard from the gentry and people of 
Kwangtung was posted up denouncing the weakness of the authori¬ 
ties, and expressing a determination to oppose the entry of the 
English to the end. On the next day the Kwangchow Fu, (the 
prefect), who was passing through the city, was attacked by the 
natives, a most unusual occurrence for a Chinese official in his seat 
of government. Not being satisfied with this, the natives followed 
him to his yamen, where they burnt and plundered for a time. The 
other officials, the Namhoi-hien and the Hiehtai, who came to 
restore order, were driven away. But order was soon re-established, 
and the viceroy and the governor issued two joint proclamations, in 
one of which they said: 

We are ashamed and covered with sweat in thinking of our inability, on 
the one hand to make the foreigners yield, and on the other to secure the con¬ 
fidence of our own Chinese; it is utterly impossible for us to exhibit to you. 


32 


Treaty Ports in China 

the people, all the toils and troubles connected with pending affairs, but, that 
you should think we wish to treat foreigners generously and our own people 
harshly, is to us utterly incredible, ... As the people are unwilling 
that the English should enter the city, how can we consent to entirely thwart 
their feelings, and improperly comply with the wishes of the foreigners? 

Thus Kiying had to face a very hard problem. In addition to the 
fact that there was a strong party in the empire which refused to 
accept the result of the arbitrament of the war, and continued its 
criticism of the treaty, and its hostility to its stipulations, he was 
opposed by the provincial authorities who accepted the doctrine of 
the anti-foreign party. It was therefore fortunate that the British 
government, realizing the difficult position of Kiying, consented to 
incorporate in the first article of the Convention signed at Bocca 
Tigris on April 4, 1846, the following stipulation: “His Majesty 
the Emperor of China having, on his own part distinctly stated that, 
when in the course of time mutual tranquillity shall have been 
insured, it will be safe and right to admit foreigners into the city of 
Canton, and the local authorities being for the present unable to 
coerce the people of that city, the plenipotentiaries on either side 
mutually agree that the execution of the above measure shall be 
postponed to a more favorable period; but the claim of right is by 
no means yielded or abandoned on the part of Her Britannic 
Majesty.” By Article 2 of the same convention British subjects 
were secured full liberty and protection in the neighborhood com¬ 
prising seventy localities outside of the city of Canton of which the 
names were communicated by the district magistrates to the British 
Consul on November 21, 1845, and that they were permitted to 
make excursions on the two sides of the river, where there were not 
numerous villages.^® 

Just three months after the conclusion of this Convention, a 
serious disturbance again occurred at Canton. On July 4, 1846, 
Mr. Charles S. Compton, a British merchant, kicked over the stall 
of a fruit-seller which was in his way at the bottom of Old China 
Street. By his indiscretion the indignation of the populace was so 
aroused, that a riot would have resulted, had not the matter been 
at once adjusted by a petty officer of the guardhouse. But, un¬ 
fortunately, on the 8th instant of the same month, when a foreigner 
was wrangling with another fruiterer at the entrance of Old China 

^Chinese Repository, 1846, pp. 46-55. 277, 432, 624. 


33 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

Street, Mr. Compton came up with a cane, with .which he proceeded 
to beat the fruit-seller. Not only this, but, in the course of the 
quarrel, Mr. Compton laid hold of a man and took him into the 
Chung-ho Hong, where he tied and beat him, thus causing the 
riotous assemblage of a large number of Chinese. The mob increased 
rapidly in force, the riot spread, and an attempt was made to 
destroy some parts of the foreign factories. The English merchants 
then came out armed with firearms, and the mob was dispersed; 
but the English, not content with this, divided themselves in parties 
to pursue the rioters. During this pursuit, three Chinese were killed 
and six were wounded. This loss of life occurred not at the place 
where the riot began but at a considerable distance from it. Finally, 
peace was restored in the factory and its vicinity through the pro¬ 
tection of Chinese troops. 

The opinion of the British plenipotentiary to China and the 
British Foreign Office was the same on this case. The British 
Government held that the Chinese authorities were responsible for 
the preservation of order and the protection of life and property 
within Chinese territorial jurisdiction and warned that, “if the 
Chinese shall be unable or unwilling to keep order, British subjects 
will defend themselves.” Meanwhile, the British Consul conducted 
an inquiry into the matter of the riot, and Mr. Compton was 
charged before the Consular Court for violating Article 13 of the 
Treaty of 1843 which provided that “whenever a British subject 
has reason to complain of a Chinese, he must first proceed to the 
Consulate and state his grievance.” Through instructions from the 
British plenipotentiary. Consul Macgregor fined Mr. Compton $200 
(Spanish) “for having on July 4 last kicked down the stall furniture 
of a fruiterer at the bottom of Old China Street.” This judgment of 
the British Consul, as he said in a communication to Mr. Compton 
was based on the Hongkong Ordinance, No. 2 of 1844. However, 
the British plenipotentiary said that it should be based on Ordinance 
No. 5 of 1844. Mr. Compton was compelled to pay the fine to the 
British Consul under protest. This case finally went to the Supreme 
Court of Hongkong, where judgment was rendered on November 24. 
The Chief Justice, in giving his decision, remarked that the case 
was at first small and insignificant, but had become important from 
what had occurred connected with it. Further, he stated: 


34 


Treaty Ports in China 

There has been a.total disregard not only of the forms of justice but of 
justice itself. Had Mr. Macgregor been in any doubt as to the form of pro¬ 
ceeding he ought to have referred to Ordinance No. 7, where it is distinctly 
pointed out. By it all proceedings in the Consular Courts shall be in con¬ 
formity and correspondence with the proceedings which in like cases would 
be had, according to the law and practice of England—the Consul has power 
to summon and examine witnesses on oath—their depositions must be 
written down—the person accused must hear the evidence, and have an 
opportunity of exculpating himself. But this Ordinance seems to have been 
totally disregarded, and the whole case appears to have been determined by 
assertions on the one side, and assumptions on the other. I am obliged to go 
to the sentence to discover what was the charge—That sentence is unjust, 
excessive and illegal . . . Though the Ordinance No. 2, provides that in 

all cases adjudicated on, the evidence recorded shall be forthwith transmitted 
to the Supreme Court of Judicature at Hongkong, this is the first case which 
has been sent, and it would not have been sent without application. This 
case, therefore, becomes of great consequence, not merely from its own merits, 
but to define the procedure in Consular Courts, which ought to be regulated 
by Ordinance No. 7. This, in a great measure, supercedes No. 2. 

The Chief Justice here read the letter of the British Envoy to the 
British Consul at Canton of October 18, 1846, in which the Envoy 
directed the Consul to fine Mr. Compton under Ordinance No. 5 
instead of Ordinance No. 2, and then continued: 

This shows that Mr. Compton received sentence under one Ordinance and 
was fined under another, which is contrary to all the principles of English 
justice. I should not suppose from the title of Ordinance No. 5, that this 
case came under it. But this is set at rest by Section 4, which gives power 
to punish, in a summary way, any infringement of the Treaties, not punish¬ 
able by the law of England. Now Mr. Compton’s case was one which the 
law of England, and also the law of this Colony, takes cognizance of. No. 5 
refers merely to Commercial Regulations. 

I have now noticed the law, and shall next advert to the facts. The charge 
founded on what took place on the 4th, is really abandoned by the Chinese. 
In the correspondence there is a want of candor on the part of the Consul. 
He refers the case to the plenipotentiary. The latter says he imposed the 
fine himself, no confirmation was therefore necessary. By this sentence Mr. 
Compton is fined for one crime in particular, and for others in general. 

The Chief Justice then read and commented upon the communi¬ 
cation from Kiying, the Chinese plenipotentiary, to the British 
Consul, and concluded as follows: “I repeat again that the whole 


35 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

case is founded on assertion on the one side and assumption on the 
other, without any evidence. Mr. Macgregor says the quoting of 
Ordinance No. 2, instead of No. 5, was my own error—but there is 
no reason why Mr. Compton should suffer for Mr. Macgregor’s 
error. It is evident, in my opinion, that Mr. Compton was sen¬ 
tenced, apparently for what took place on the 4th—but really for 
what occurred on the 8th. Had there only been some small mistakes 
as to matters of form, I should have considered it proper merely to 
modify the fine to a small sum; but the whole proceedings have been 
so exceedingly irregular as to render it necessary to reverse the 
judgment altogether; and that the sentence of the Court, that the 
sentence of Mr. Macgregor, imposing a fine of $200 upon Mr. 
Compton, be reversed.” 

The decision of the Supreme Court was regarded as a disappoint¬ 
ment to the British administrative authorities. It in fact dealt a 
hard blow not only to the British Foreign Office, but also to the 
British plenipotentiary in China and the Consul at Canton who 
expected to exercise such control over British subjects so as to 
deprive the Chinese of any excuse for failing to maintain order. 
Sir G. F. Davis, the British plenipotentiary, writing to Lord Palmer¬ 
ston on November 12, 1846, said: 

The late ferment among the English merchants at Canton, in consequence 
of the fine I ordered on Mr. Compton, may perhaps not greatly surprise your 
lordship, who were cognizant of the proceedings of Mr. Innes under Captain 
Elliot, and who perhaps heard the evidence of Mr. Inglis, another merchant, 
who declared, “We never paid any attention to any law in China that I am 
aware of” ... I am not the first who has been compelled to remark that 
it is more difficult to deal with our own countrymen at Canton, than with 
the Chinese Government; and I offer the best proof of this in the fact that it 
has cost me infinitely more trouble to make Mr. Compton pay a fine of $200 
than to obtain a compensation to our merchants of $46,000 for losses which 
accrued partly from their own misconduct. 

In closing with this case, I may quote the following from a com¬ 
petent authority’s work: 

Lord Palmerston stated that he intended to refer the whole proceedings, 
especially the judgment of the chief justice, to the law officers of the crown, 
and that he entirely approved the fine of $200. (He continued): “It cannot 
be tolerated that British subjects should indulge towards the people of China 
in acts of violence or contumely which they would not venture to practice 


36 Treaty Ports in China 

towards the humblest and meanest individual in their own country.” Sir J. F. 
Davis was instructed that, in returning the fine to Mr. Compton, “You will 
carefully abstain from offering him any apology or amends;” and in a letter 
from the Foreign Office to Mr. Compton, he was informed that the govern¬ 
ment “thoroughly approve the fine, and only regret that you escaped penalty 
owing to defect in the form of proceedings against you.” 

The next event of importance occurred on March 12, 1847.^^ On 
this day six British subjects and one American citizen went to 
Fatshan for a visit. This place was then known as one of the great 
industrial centers in China, but was turbulent and uncontrollable, 
so that no foreigner should have been allowed to go there under the 
unfavorable circumstances of the time. On arriving at Fatshan 
they landed under the escort of a petty official, the people began to 
exhibit a hostile attitude and to stone them. As the petty officer 
stood firmly on his duty to defend the aliens so the party was 
finally able to get back to their boat after being subjected to re¬ 
peated volleys of stones. The British plenipotentiary protested 
against this outrage and demanded that reparation should be given, 
and being dissatisfied with the Chinese authorities’ reply, he ordered 
a military force to be despatched to Canton. By April 3 the British 
forces had succeeded in effecting military occupation of the fac¬ 
tories at Canton, after having taken the forts at the Bogue and in 
the Canton River. The Canton authorities were again confronted 
with another assault on their city, and were thus compelled to dis¬ 
cuss the ultimatum of Great Britain, and a convention was signed 
on April 6, 1847. Under this agreement Kiying, the Chinese 
plenipotentiary, accepted the following terms: 

1. The intention of returning my visit in the city is excellent, but the 
time for it ought still somewhat to be delayed. It is therefore now agreed 
that two years from this day’s date British officers and people shall have free 
entrance into the city. 

2. Whenever Englishmen go on shore to walk, and meet with insult, the 
local authorities must investigate the matter and punish (the aggressors); 
and the space of one day’s journey, just as at Shanghai, is also assigned at 
Canton (for such excursions). 

31 Morse, International Relations, pp. 382-384; Chinese Repository, July, 1846- 
March, 1847. 

32 Chinese Repository, vol. 16, pp. 190-200. 

33 Hertslet’s China Treaties, vol. i, pp. 17-18. 


37 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

3. The criminals who in October last year wounded some Englishmen 
have, though pursued, not yet been taken. As, however, vigilant search is 
made at present after them, they will soon be apprehended. 

I have, on account of the assault made in March, frequently sent officers 
to Fuhshan (Fatshan) to investigate and manage this affair. The deputed 
mandarins now report that they have already traced (the aggressors), and 
several of them will be caught within two or three days, and sent to the 
provincial city to be judged. One of our Mandarins will then settle as to 
the place where they are to receive punishment, with an officer of your hon¬ 
orable country, that it may be done without loss of time. 

4. The territory of Honan (opposite Canton) is place for trade, the 
renting of warehouses or of ground for building houses is therefore fully 
conceded. This will be managed properly by the Consul and the local 
authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. 

5. According to the American and French Treaties, the building of 
churches in the Five Ports is conceded, and it is therefore agreed upon that 
a spot in the neighborhood of the foreign factories, outside of them, may be 
rented for erecting one. 

It is a laudable act to rent ground at Whampoa for making graves, and 
likewise in conformity with the Treaty. The Consul in conjunction with the 
local authorities will settle this matter properly according to the Treaty. 

6. I have already given orders to the old Hong merchant to carry into 
effect (the affairs about the building of the bridge and cookhouse), and shall 
urge him to do this properly. 

7. The 7th Article is proposed with a view of preventing the creating of 
disturbance between the mariners of our respective countries, and hence the 
river (before the foreign factories) must be kept clear (of boats). We shall 
therefore order the officers of that station to drive away (the boats) from 
time to time. 

The next turbulent event took place on December 5, 1847. On 
that day Messrs. Small, Balkwill, Bellamy, Brown, W. Rutter, and 
M’Carte, six young Englishmen, started on an excursion up the 
river and landing at a village three or four miles off, called Hwang- 
chu-kee, proceeded inland. On the same day two of them were 
killed. The other four fled, but after some resistance they were 
captured and on the next day they were killed. During the affray 
one native was killed and one wounded. On being informed of 
the matter, the Chinese plenipotentiary acted promptly and took 
military occupation of the village, which action was regarded as a 
very heavy punishment. Soon after this fifteen men were arrested 
as having taken part in this dreadful violence. It was finally 


38 


Treaty Ports in China 

agreed between the Chinese and British authorities that justice 
should be administered at the place where the crime was committed. 
On December 21, in the presence of Chinese and English authorities, 
both civil and military, four of the criminals were beheaded. The 
other eleven criminals were provisionally sentenced, one to decapi¬ 
tation, one to strangulation, three to banishment to the frontier 
for life, and six to bambooing and banishment for three years, and 
when the Board of Punishment later approved these sentences they 
were all enforced, except as to one of the culprits who died during 
the period of provisional sentence.^^ 

In 1848, certain regulations were agreed upon by the British and 
Chinese authorities for the protection of foreigners during their 
excursions into the surrounding country near Canton. By these 
regulations it was provided (Article i) that eight policemen, whose 
names were to be registered at the British Consulate, should be in 
constant attendance at the principal guardhouse in Old China 
Street, for the special purpose of attending foreigners who should 
desire to make excursions for recreation into the surrounding coun¬ 
try. On such occasions the special officer at the station and the 
assistant magistrate of Nanhai were on the request of the Consul 
to appoint two policemen and a linguist to accompany each party, 
even if there should be two or more on the same day, to the respec¬ 
tive places indicated in the request. These regulations also pro¬ 
vided (Article 2) that on foreigners going out, the Consul, in order 
to prevent mistakes, would give previous notice thereof, and state 
the particulars to the special officer at the guardhouse, who would 
appoint the requisite number of policemen and linguists to proceed 
to the factory where, at the time when, their services might be 
wanted. It also stipulated (Article 3) that if any of the policemen 
should give rise to troubles, the special officer would, as occasion 
might require, exchange them for others and give information thereof 
to the Consul. It further required (Article 4) the district magistrate 
to pay the salary of the policemen, and prohibited them from 
demanding even the smallest extra remuneration for services. 
Further, it provided that they were to be distinguished by official 
caps and dresses, and by waist-badges, in evidence of their author¬ 
ity. Then it provided (Article 5) that the policemen and linguists 
so appointed must, on accompanying foreigners by water, go in the 
Chinese Repository, vol. 16, pp. 611-613; vol. 17, pp. 54-55, 157-158, 264, 320. 


The First Five Treaty Ports 39 

boats of the latter, as they might fall behind or go astray if embark¬ 
ing in separate vessels.^^ 

At the beginning of the second half of the year 1848, the question 
of the right of entry to the city of Canton was again a vital diplo¬ 
matic problem. As early as June 7, 1848, the British Minister, 
Mr. Samuel George Bonham, wrote to the Chinese plenipotentiary, 
suggesting that preliminary measures should be taken to assure the 
enjoyment of that right, which was to take effect on April 6, 1849; 
but in the reply, the Chinese plenipotentiary pointed out the dis¬ 
advantages of insisting upon and the difficulties which would attend 
the exercise of the right. Further correspondence having elicited 
yet other objections from the Chinese plenipotentiary. Lord Palmer¬ 
ston wrote expressing his doubt of the actual value of the right, 
and suggested as a compromise that it should be restricted to the 
minister or the Consul on occasions when they should visit the 
Chinese plenipotentiary, and that they should then be attended 
by a Chinese escort. After the most careful consideration, he again 
instructed Mr. Bonham that it was inadvisable to insist upon a 
privilege which could scarcely be enjoyed with security or advan¬ 
tage if it had to be maintained by armed forces; and he in effect 
authorized Mr. Bonham to evade the issue. 

Meanwhile placards addressed to the people of Canton appeared 
in the streets, and the whole city was again living in a state of excite¬ 
ment. The placards announced the popular determination to resist 
foreign intrusion, and declared that if the aliens should ever attempt 
to enter, they would be destroyed. The following extract may be 
taken as a typical one: “United in mind and strength, at one beat 
of the drum we will take them (the aliens), and absolutely kill 
every one of the barbarian rebels, and not leave a blade of grass an 
inch high, nor allow the creepers to spread”.^® 

From this time on the diplomatic battle continued with much 
vigor. In the meantime the Cantonese showed a disposition to 
renew their acts of aggression against the foreign residents. This 
hostile spirit increased so rapidly that in 1856 another serious 
incident was recorded in the annals of the city. On October 8, 1856, 
the Hongkong-registered lorcha Arrow lay off the port of Canton. 
Early in the morning several Chinese officers, together with a com- 

Chinese Repository, 1848, pp. 104-105. 

Ibid., March-April, 1849. 


40 


Treaty Ports in China 

pany of Chinese troops boarded the vessel, and hauled down the 
British flag, and the crew, which were composed of twelve Chinese, 
were bound and taken into the guard-boats. The master, Thomas 
Kennedy, was then visiting another lorcha in the vicinity. He was, 
however, able to get back before the soldiers left with the prisoners, 
but his protest for the arrest and removal of his crew was unheeded. 
Harry S. Parkes, the British Consul, went personally on the guard- 
boat with the demand that they should be taken to the Consulate 
for examination, but this was refused. Then he wrote to the Chinese 
High Commissioner, demanding that the crew should be returned 
to the lorcha, and stating in case there was any charge of crime they 
would then “be conveyed to the British Consulate, where, in con¬ 
junction with proper officers deputed by your Excellency for the 
purpose, I shall be prepared to investigate the case.” 

The Chinese High Commissioner Yeh Ming-chin replied on the 
14th that of the twelve men seized, nine were returned on board 
the Arrow, but that three men were detained for further investiga¬ 
tion, and at the same time maintained that the vessel was owned 
by a Chinese subject and was therefore not entitled to the protec¬ 
tion of the British flag. But the British Consul refused to receive 
the nine men returned in this off-hand way. The reply was deemed 
as unsatisfactory, so a government junk was seized as reprisal by 
the British authorities, but this action had no effect on the Chinese 
High Commissioner. Yeh then, on the 22nd, returned the twelve 
men under the condition that two of them should be sent back for 
further examination. Mr. Parkes refused thus to receive them, and 
as no apology was given the matter passed into the hands of the 
naval authorities. 

The Chinese Commissioner persisted in his policy of refusing to 
make any concession to the British authorities, as the case was 
believed to be seriously connected with the opium smuggling which 
was then an ordinary business routine of many of the Chinese im¬ 
porters. At the outset the case was of little importance, but its 
importance increased with the accretion of other demands which 
the British authorities took the opportunity of making, in order 
that other and greater questions might find their settlement. 

On October 23, Admiral Seymour began to secure military pos¬ 
session of all the forts along the river. Having completed this work, 
he opened fire on the city on the 26th. Against all these acts Yeh 


The First Five Treaty Ports 41 

protested in vain, and he then issued a proclamation which con¬ 
stituted a declaration of war against England on the 28th. 

During the ensuing hostilities the Americans and the French, 
while believing that satisfaction for their demands could be obtained 
only by force, endeavored to maintain an attitude of neutrality. 
The government at Washington enjoined its representatives from 
doing anything which might involve the country in war. Both 
France and the United States had grievances against China and 
both had demanded the revision of their treaties; but their repre¬ 
sentatives were not permitted to cooperate with the British in 
aggressive action. In view of the situation, and on the direct 
request of Yeh, the Chinese High Commissioner, the American 
guards were withdrawn from Canton on November 16, leaving it 
to American citizens to decide for themselves if they would stay or 
not; and the French guard was withdrawn on November 22; both 
consular flags were hauled down on those dates.^^ 

The American withdrawal from Canton was attended with the 
following incident: As Commander Foote was on his way to Canton 
on November 15, his boat was fired upon from the Chinese forts, 
although the American flag was prominently displayed. Commo¬ 
dore Armstrong had three warships at his disposal, so he determined 
to silence the forts which had committed the offense, and by the 
22nd he had already dismantled them. Commissioner Yeh, on 
being informed of the facts, made an apology on December 5, 
stating that there was no matter of strife between the two countries, 
and that the design of the American flag would be communicated 
to the forts, and the result would serve to demonstrate the friendly 
relations which existed between the two countries. This was ac¬ 
cepted as satisfactory, and the incident was closed.^® 

On December 14, fires were started at several places among the 
ruins of the Chinese houses at the back of the factories. Notwith¬ 
standing the strenuous effort to save them, all the buildings in the 
factories were reduced to a mass of ruins with the exception of one 
house, midway from front to back in the English hong (the old 
company’s factory). For the defense of the settlement, an en¬ 
trenchment was then made enclosing the two gardens. Another 

37 John W. Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 225-230. 

38 Charles S. Leavenworth, The Arrow War with China, p. 35 et seqr, J. W. Foster, 
American Diplomacy in the Orient, p. 225. 


42 


Treaty Ports in China 

attack on unarmed non-belligerents took place in the same month. 
On December 22, the postal steam-packet Thistle, plying between 
Canton and Hongkong, was attacked by Chinese war-junks, but 
she was fortunate enough to be able to make her escape with only 
one Chinese person belonging to her crew being killed and two 
wounded. But on her way back to Hongkong, on December 30, 
after having passed the second Bar, a number of Chinese passengers 
having soldier’s uniforms under their outer garments, produced 
concealed weapons and captured the vessel. Having killed all the 
foreigners, including the master, the mate, two engineers, four 
quartermasters, and three passengers, among them the Spanish 
Vice-consul at Whampoa, they ran the ship ashore and burned it. 

In the meantime, another incident happened in the interior. In 
1853 when the greater part of the province of Kwangtung and the 
whole of Kwangsi were seriously disturbed by the Taiping Rebellion, 
August Chapdelaine, a Catholic missionary, was unfortunately sent 
to Kwangsi for the purpose of spreading the gospel. He settled at 
Silin, in the extreme northwest corner of the province, where the 
provincial government had very little actual power of administra¬ 
tion. For some time, however, he was well treated and encouraged 
by the magistrate of the city; but on February 24, 1856, this well- 
disposed magistrate’s successor caused him to be arrested, and 
after a trial, during which he was subjected to various kinds of 
torture, he was put to death. After the lapse of almost half a year 
the French diplomatic representative at Canton received an accu¬ 
rate report of the case; and on July 25 he protested against what 
he called the “judicial murder,” claiming that it was a violation of 
the French Treaty of 1844, particularly of Article 23, which pro¬ 
vided that Frenchmen arrested for any cause in the interior should 
be sent to the Consul at the nearest port, and that neither the 
authorities nor the people of China might strike or wound any 
Frenchman so arrested. To this protest Commissioner Yeh replied 
that under the treaty mission work was restricted to the five open 
ports; that Kwangsi was much disturbed by rebels, who asserted, 
often no doubt falsely, that they were Christians; that such persons 
must be severely dealt with, and that the trial and execution were 
justified on the ground that the missionary was engaged in foment¬ 
ing rebellion. Having failed to secure prompt redress from the 
Canton authorities, the French Government finally determined 


The First Five Treaty Ports 43 

to join the English in military operations against the Chinese 
authorities.^® 

Violent bombardment of Canton began on December 28, 1857, 
with a mixed force of 5,679 French and English infantry and 
marines. On the 29th the city wall was attacked on the northern 
part of the east front and in the afternoon the northern portion of 
the city was firmly held, while the south front lay under the guns 
of the warships. The next day the Chinese merchants had an 
interview with Mr. T. F. Wade, interpreter of Lord Elgin, the 
British plenipotentiary, and as a result they agreed on a joint ar¬ 
rangement for policing the city, which involved cooperation be¬ 
tween the Chinese militia and the allied naval authorities. How¬ 
ever, the troops, who had defended the walls, made no offer of sub¬ 
mission, and the High Commissioner, Yeh, proposed no terms of 
peace. The commanders of the invading forces holding that Yeh, as 
head of the government, was responsible for all the troubles, and that 
he was the guiding spirit of the opposition, caused him to be arrested, 
on January 4, 1858, in the Tartar-General’s yamen. After con¬ 
ference between the English and French authorities, it was finally 
decided to exile him to Calcutta, where he died within a year after 
his arrival. His body was sent back to Canton, but the people 
received it with no apparent mark of interest.^® 

When Yeh was captured and sent to Calcutta, Pikwei, Governor 
of Kwangtung, became automatically Viceroy and head of the 
Canton authorities. The French and English officials after careful 
consideration determined to place Pikwei in charge not only of 
the government of the city but also of that of the province; but 
his powers were to be exercised under the supervision of a commis¬ 
sion representing the allies. On January 9, 1858, a proclamation 
was issued to the inhabitants by the allies, and another by Pikwei, 
announcing that, while the city remained under the control of the 
allied forces, the government was entrusted to the hands of Pikwei. 
This restoration was agreed upon on four conditions. The first 
was that a committee should be appointed by the allies; that its 
members should reside at the Chinese yamen for the purpose of 
assisting the governor in maintaining order; and that they should 

39 Henri Cordier, L’Expedition de Chine, 1857-1858, p. 158-222. 

^oWingrove Cooke, China, pp. 258, 324, 328, 340, 431; North-China Herald, May 
28, 1859. 


44 


Treaty Ports in China 

be supported by a military force, which would patrol the city. The 
second condition provided that, beyond the limits held by the 
allied forces, all cases in which Chinese alone were concerned should 
be disposed of by the Chinese authorities; but the committee were 
to take cognizance of cases in which foreigners were concerned. 
Offenses committed within the limits held by the allies were to be 
dealt with under martial law. The third condition was that no 
proclamation should be issued by the governor, or in his name, 
until sealed with the seal of the committee. The last condition 
provided for the surrender of all arms and military stores. 

To fulfil this arrangement three members were appointed to the 
committee. They were supported by a patrolling force of lOO 
English and 30 French, and they also organized a Chinese police 
force of 700 for the city and 600 for the suburbs for maintaining 
peace and order. The control of native inhabitants was left to the 
Chinese authorities, but rigid and stern justice was administered 
by the committee to English and French marauders, and, as a^ 
measure of conciliation, the blockade was raised on February 10. 
For three years the commissioners governed the city, and under 
them a just and equitable rule was substituted for the tyranny 
which had up to that time disgraced the administration of justice 
in the city.^^ 

On the capture of Canton in December, 1857, the foreign mer¬ 
chants, who flocked back to Canton to re-establish trade, found the 
factory site presenting only the melancholy aspect of utter de¬ 
struction. The river-front of Canton was also in ruins, partly from 
the conflagration which spread from the burning of the factories, 
and partly from the fire of the fleet, and the only accommodation 
available was that afforded by the godowns or warehouses on the 
opposite (Honan) side of the river, where formerly merchandise was 
stored preparatory to export. In a short time the entire river 
frontage was rented by foreign firms, who caused the native build¬ 
ings to be altered into sufficiently comfortable temporary dwelling 
houses, pending the selection of a site for foreign residences. Much 
discussion took place in this respect, and it was eventually deter¬ 
mined that an extensive mudflat covered with water at high tide, 
lying to the westward of the factory site, and known as Shamien or 

L. Oliphant, Narrative of the Earl of Elgin's Mission to China and Japan in the 
Years 1857-1858-185Q, vol. i, pp. 141-175. 


45 


The First Five Treaty Ports 

"the Sand Flats”, should be filled in and appropriated as the British 
settlement. Out of this an artificial island was created by building 
upon piles driven into the river bed a massive embankment of 
granite, of an irregular oval form, the interior of which was filled 
up with sand and mud. This immense undertaking occupied some 
two years, and required a total expenditure of $325,000, of which 
four-fifths were defrayed by the British and one-fifth by the French 
Government. The area was appropriated to the two governments 
in similar proportions; and on September 3, 1861, the British por¬ 
tion, divided into eighty-two lots, was put up for sale at public 
auction. Such was the competition at the time, based on the expec¬ 
tation of a flourishing trade, that the enormous sum of $9,000 and 
upwards was paid for many lots. The restriction as to the sale of 
land to none but British subjects, originally contemplated, was 
abandoned, and the land was made accessible to all except Chinese. 
The portion allotted to the French Government had remained unsold 
and unoccupied up to the late seventies. For all these lots, a ground 
rent of almost nominal amount (1,500 cash per mow) is paid 
annually by the owners to the Chinese Government.^^ 

<2 H. Cordier, L'Expedition de Chine, 1857-1858, pp. 212-315. 


Chapter III 

The Treaties of 1858 and i860 

When affairs at Canton were put on a satisfactory basis, the 
British and French representatives agreed to carry out their in¬ 
structions to open communication with the court at Peking. Similar 
letters were addressed to the Chinese Government by the Russian 
and American Ministers, but the reply in each case was that the 
English, American and French Ministers should conduct their com¬ 
munications with the Canton authorities, and the Russian Minister 
with the authorities on the Amur frontier. After some discussion 
and delay, the four ministers finally decided that they should pro¬ 
ceed to the Peiho, in order, as Lord Elgin, the British Minister 
explained in a further letter to the Chinese Secretary of State, “that 
they might place themselves in more immediate communication 
with the high officials of the Imperial Government at the Capital.” 
He further demanded that within six days a duly accredited pleni¬ 
potentiary should meet him at Taku where they might negotiate 
about their affairs, otherwise he should “consider his pacific over¬ 
tures to have been rejected, and deem himself to be thenceforward 
at liberty to adopt such further measures for enforcing the just 
claims of his government on that of China as he may think expe¬ 
dient.” As no reply was received, the ministers determined to 
proceed to Tientsin, which they reached on May 30, 1858. The 
advance of the allies to a spot so near the capital changed the whole 
aspect of affairs, and the Imperial Commissioners, Kweiliang and 
Hwashana, were despatched from the capital with certain powers 
to negotiate with the allies. When they reached Tientsin, Lord 
Elgin refused to hold any communication with them on the ground 
that their credentials were deficient, and that they were envoys 
devoid of plenipotentiary powers. But the American and Russian 
Ministers, being less exacting, succeeded in concluding treaties with 
the commissioners. The treaty with Russia, which was signed on 
June 14, 1858, granted (Article 2) the right of correspondence upon 
an equal footing between the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs 


47 


The Treaties of 1858 and i860 

and the Prime Minister, or the First Minister of the Council of 
State at Peking, as well as permission to send diplomatic agents to 
that city upon special occasions. The right to trade was secured to 
Russians (Article 3) at the treaty ports of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, 
Ningpo, Shanghai, and in addition, at Taiwanfu in Formosa and at 
another port in the island of Hainan. Stipulations were made 
(Article 4) for the payment of duties by Russian subjects, and for 
the confiscation of imported articles of illicit trade; for the appoint¬ 
ment (Article 5) of Russian Consuls in the open ports; for the treat¬ 
ment (Article 6) of wrecks and salvage, and also for the repair and 
revictualling of ships of war and merchant vessels in non-open ports 
of China. Disputes between Chinese and Russians were to be exam¬ 
ined (Article 7) by the Chinese authorities in concert with Russian 
Consuls; Russian criminals were to be judged according to Russian 
law and Chinese by their own law, Russians committing a crime 
were to be sent beyond the frontier or to the Consul to be tried. 
Provisions were made (Article 8) for passports to missionaries.^ 

The treaty with the United States of America, which was concluded 
on June 18, 1858, likewise provided (Article 4) for correspondence 
between the United States Diplomatic Representative and the 
Chinese Government upon terms of perfect equality; and the 
American Minister, whenever he had business, was to have (Article 
5) the right to visit and sojourn at the Chinese Capital. His visits 
were not to exceed one in each year, and was to complete his business 
without unnecessary delay. The appointment of United States 
Consuls in the open ports was duly authorized (Article 10); and on 
the arrival of a Consul duly accredited at any treaty port in China, 
the Minister of the United States was to notify the fact to the 
Governor-General of the province where the port is, who was forth¬ 
with to recognize the Consul, and grant him authority to act. 
Stipulations were made (Article 9) for the protection of the life and 
property of American citizens in the open ports, and for the extra¬ 
dition of criminals. The right was secured (Article 14) to American 
citizens to frequent the ports and cities (Article 14) of Canton, 
Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, Shanghai, Swatow, Taiwanfu of the 
Island of Formosa, and any other port or place which should, by 
treaty with other Powers or with the United States, be opened to 

1 53 British and Foreign State Papers, 966; Henri Cordier, L'Expedition de Chine, 
1857-1858, p. 406 et seq.; North-China Herald, March 6 and April 17, 1858. 


48 Treaty Ports in China 

commerce, and to reside with their families and trade there, and to 
proceed at pleasure with their vessels and merchandise from any 
of these ports to any other of them.^ 

The treaty with France was the last one for signature, although 
it was completed in its draft on the 23rd of June. On the question 
of the residence of diplomatic agents as provided under Article 2 it 
followed closely the American stipulation that envoys were privi¬ 
leged to proceed to Peking when important affairs called them there; 
but in addition to that it was provided that if the right of a perma¬ 
nent legation were granted to any other of the treaty powers, France 
became at once entitled to the same privilege. Stipulations similar 
to those in the American treaty were made (Article 5) for the ap¬ 
pointment of French Consuls in the treaty ports; and for the 
French citizens and their families to live and trade (Article 7) in the 
open ports. It was further provided that the following places were 
to be open ports: Kiungchow; Swatow (Chao-chow); Taiwan, 
Tamsui, both in the Island of Formosa; Tangchow (Chefoo); and 
Nanking. This treaty, as already stated, was completed on June 
23 and might have been signed on the next day, but Baron Gros, the 
French Minister, “out of deference to his ally,” deferred its signature 
until June 27, the day following that of the British.^ 

In diplomacy as in military pressure, at Tientsin in June, 1858, as 
at Canton during the preceding three decades, the English was the 
most aggressive and avaricious. The negotiations began on June 
6 and continued through the successive periods in which the Rus¬ 
sian, American, and French envoys were busied with their treaties. 
The last draft of the treaty was held on June 26, and on the same 
day the treaty was signed and sealed by the plenipotentiaries of 
the two governments. This treaty granted (Articles 2 and 3) the 
right of choice at the option of the British diplomatic representatives 
for his residence. It also declared that in addition to the ports of 
Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai, opened by the 
Treaty of Nanking of 1842, it was agreed (Article 10) that British 
subjects might frequent the cities and ports of Newchwang, Tang- 

2 William M. Malloy’s Treaties, etc., between the United States of America and other 
Powers, vol. i, pp. 211-221; W. A. P. Martin’s A Cycle of Cathay, pp. 180-181; J. W. 
Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 240-243. 

3 John W. Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, p. 241; Henri Cordier, 
L'Expedition de Chine, 1857-1858, pp. 422-435; 51 British and Foreign Stale Papers, 

637. 


49 


The Treaties of 18^8 and i860 

chow (Chefoo), Taiwan (Formosa), Chao-Chow (Swatow), and 
Kiungchow (Hainan). Stipulations similar to those between China 
and other powers were made (Article 7) for the appointment of 
consuls in the open ports; and for the extradition of criminals 
(Article 21).'* 

In all these treaties, it was provided that the ratifications should 
be exchanged within one year from the date of signature. For this 
purpose Mr. Bruce, the British Minister, reached Shanghai on 
June 6, 1859, and M. de Bourboulon, the French Minister, on the 
7th, but they were preceded in their arrival by Mr. Ward, the 
American Minister. When the three ministers met the Chinese 
plenipotentiaries, Mr. Bruce, speaking for himself and his colleagues, 
stated that he must decline to consider any questions connected 
with the treaty until after the exchange of the ratifications the 
limit of time for which was approaching its end, and that “his reso¬ 
lution to proceed to Peking for that purpose without delay” was 
“inflexible.” The Chinese plenipotentiaries asked for an extension 
of time, as it required two months for them to reach Peking by the 
usual journey on land. The ministers, however, advised them to 
go by steamer, to which they replied that they dared not adopt so 
novel a mode of going to court without express authority, but they 
gave assurance that the reception of the foreign envoys would be 
friendly, provided they would anchor their vessels outside the bar 
of Taku, and then proceed to the Chinese Capital without much 
baggage and with a moderate retinue. Not long after this the 
three ministers left Shanghai and on June 20 they arrived at Taku. 

On their arrival they were informed that they were forbidden to 
land, as there was no authority, civil or military, on the spot; that 
the river had been barred against the Taiping rebels by the people 
at their own expense, and that the garrison consisted of militia only. 
After having received this information, the British Minister, in 
conjunction with his French colleague, instructed Admiral Sir James 
Hope on June 21 to clear away the obstructions in the river, so as 
to allow the ministers to proceed to Tientsin. On the 24th, Mr. 
Ward, the American Minister, went in the chartered steamer 
Toeywan, flying the American flag, to claim a passage through the 
barrier and up to Tientsin, basing his claim on his position as a 

^Cordier, VExpedition de Chine, 1857-1858, pp. 411. 436, 457, 458; W. A. P. 
Martin, A Cycle of Cathay, pp. 183, 186; 48 British and Foreign State Papers, 47 et seq. 


50 


Treaty Ports in China 

neutral, but unfortunately the steamer ran ashore before reaching 
the landing-place. Here the American Minister was informed that 
the Viceroy of Chihli, Hengfu, was at Peitang, ten miles up the 
coast, waiting to receive him there. On June 25, Mr. Bruce received 
a communication from the Viceroy, dated the 23rd, informing him 
that the writer was waiting to receive him at Peitang, which was 
to be dismantled of all defenses, and from which place the minister 
would be conducted to Peking. Unfortunately, this communication 
came too late, as the forces under Admiral Hope had at 10 o’clock 
in the morning already begun to remove the obstructions in the 
river; but in this undertaking, in which they were opposed by the 
fire of the Chinese forts, they suffered a total defeat.^ 

On the other hand, the American Minister, Mr. Ward, accepting 
the invitation of the Viceroy, proceeded to Peitang, where he was 
received with proper respect; and on July 20, with the members of 
his legation, he set out for Peking. When, on the 28th of July, he 
reached the capital, he found that General Ignatieff and his legation 
had arrived there and had exchanged the ratifications of the Rus¬ 
sian treaty at the end of May. He was also informed that the 
kotow was essential to an audience with the Emperor, and being 
unwilling to concede this, he left Peking on the 12th of August for 
Peitang, where he exchanged the ratifications with Viceroy Hengfu 
on the i6th. In taking this course the American Minister acted in 
conformity with his instructions, his sole purpose being to effect the 
exchange of the ratifications of the treaty; and he had neither 
authority nor force to compel a passage by Taku. He also acted 
in conformity with the provisions of his own treaty, in which no 
place for the exchange was specified.® 

On July I, Admiral Hope informed Mr. Bruce that the means at 
his disposal were insufficient for removing the obstacles at the entry 
of the river, so the British and French envoys decided to return to 
Shanghai. But when the news of the disaster reached Europe, 
immediate steps were taken by the two Powers to restore their 
prestige in the Far East. Lord Elgin and Baron Gros were again 
appointed by their respective governments to represent England 

6 Cordier, VExpedition de Chine, i860, pp. 35-38, 55 . 58; W. A. P. Martin, A Cycle 
of Cathay, pp. 190-194; J. W. Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp.- 247-249; 
S. W. Williams, Middle Kingdom, vol. 2, pp. 665-668. 

® J. W. Foster, American Diplomacy in the Orient, pp. 247-255; W. A. P. Martin, A 
Cycle of Cathay, pp. 195-200; North-China Herald, August 22, 1859. 


51 


The Treaties of 1858 and i860 

and France, while a force of 10,000 British and 7,000 French was 
despatched to support them under the command, respectively, of 
Sir Hope Grant and General Montauban. Meanwhile, Sir F. Bruce 
addressed an ultimatum to the Senior Secretary of State, in which 
he demanded an immediate and unconditional acceptance of the 
following terms: (i) that an apology should be offered for the acts 
of the Chinese troops at Taku; (2) that the British Minister should 
go by way of the river in a British vessel to Tientsin, and thence to 
Peking, where the treaty of 1858 should be ratified without delay; 
(3) that full effect should be given to the provisions of the treaties, 
including the indemnity for the Canton delinquencies; (4) that the 
agreement arrived at by Lord Elgin and the Imperial plenipoten¬ 
tiaries in 1858, with regard to the non-residence of the British 
Minister at Peking, was at an end; and (5) that since the Peiho 
affair had entailed a considerable expense, the contribution which 
would be required from the Chinese government towards defraying 
the cost would be greater or less, according to the promptitude with 
which the demands above made should be satisfied in full by the 
Imperial Government. Thirty days were given for an answer to 
this despatch, and in case of none being forthcoming within that 
period, or the answer being unsatisfactory, the Chinese Government 
was warned that force would be employed. In the reply, the Chinese 
Government traversed the facts on which Sir F. Bruce had based 
his demands, graciously informing him that if he came to Peitang 
he would receive the ratification of his treaty. “But,” it was added, 
“if you be resolved to bring up a number of war vessels, and if you 
persist in proceeding by way of Taku, it will show that your true 
purpose is not the exchange of treaties;” and it concluded thus: 
“The despatch written on this occasion is, in much of its language, 
too insubordinate and extravagant for the Council to discuss its 
proposition more than superficially. For the future the British 
Minister must not be so wanting in decorum.” ^ 

Such was the actual situation when Lord Elgin and Baron Gros 
reappeared on the scene. They finally decided to proceed with 
their combined forces for Peitang, where their war vessels anchored 
on July 26, i860. On August 2, the troops began to land. The 
forts at Peitang were found to have been practically deserted, and 
were taken possession of without the firing of a shot. The forces 
’ Henri Cordier, L'Expedition de Chine, i860, pp. 95-96, 158-162. 


52 


Treaty Ports in China 

then advanced to Tangku, and having captured it, proceeded to 
Taku, which they in turn captured on August 21. The way was 
thus opened to Tientsin, whither Lord Elgin and Baron Gros pro¬ 
ceeded with a strong escort of cavalry and infantry. As the allied 
forces were approaching Peking, the Emperor went to Jehol in 
Tartary, and on September 22 Prince Kung, the Emperor’s brother 
wrote to the envoys that he was invested with full plenipotentiary 
powers to arrange peace. Early in October the allied forces came 
within sight of the capital, which lay at their mercy; but with 
“studied and judicious moderation,” they demanded only the tem¬ 
porary surrender of the Anting Gate of the city. This demand was 
yielded on October 13, when the gate was under temporary military 
occupation of the allied forces. In the meantime negotiations had 
been carried on for the conclusion of conventions between Prince 
Kung and the allied envoys, and on October 24, i860. Lord Elgin 
and Prince Kung signed and sealed that relating to England, while 
on the next day the French document received signature.^ 

The Convention of i860 with Great Britain was thus signed at 
Peking. Article i expresses the regret of the Emperor at the mis¬ 
understanding occasioned by the obstruction offered by the garrison 
of Taku to the passage of the British envoy for the purpose of 
exchanging the ratifications of the Treaty of 1858. Article 2 gives 
the British diplomatic representative the right to reside permanently 
or occasionally at Peking according to his own decision. Article 3 
provides for an indemnity of 8,000,000 ta^els, 2,000,000 taels to 
British merchants for their losses at Canton during the destruction 
of their property in 1857, and the remaining 6,000,000 for war 
expenses. Article 4 stipulates that “it is agreed that on the day of 
which this Convention is signed His Imperial Majesty the Emperor 
of China shall open the port of Tientsin to trade, and that it shall be 
thereafter competent to British subjects to reside and trade there 
under the same conditions as at any other port of China by Treaty 
open to trade.” Article 5 provides that the high authorities of every 
province shall proclaim throughout their jurisdictions that Chinese 
choosing to take service in the British Colonies or other parts 
beyond the sea are at perfect liberty to enter into agreement with 
British subjects for that purpose, and to ship themselves and their 

8 Stanley Lane-Poole, The Life of Sir Harry Parkes, vol. i, pp. 362-364; Henri 
Cordier, L'Expedition de Chine, i860, pp. 299-391, 445. 


53 


The Treaties of 1858 and i860 

families on board any British vessel at any of the open ports of 
China; and also that the high authorities shall, in concert with the 
British representative in China, frame such regulations for the pro¬ 
tection of Chinese, emigrating as above, as the circumstances of 
the different open ports may demand.® 

The Peking Convention between China and France was signed 
on October 25, i860. Article i offers apology for the conduct of 
the Chinese military authorities at Taku. Article 2 provides for 
courteous treatment of the French envoy during his stay at Peking. 
Article 5 provides 1,000,000 taels as indemnity to be paid to French 
merchants for their losses sustained at Canton during the hostility 
of 1857, and it also provides 7,000,000 taels as an indemnity for 
war expenses. Article 6 provides for the restitution of French 
religious establishments, and also the right of French missionaries 
to rent and purchase land in the provinces and to erect buildings 
thereon. Article 7 in providing for the opening of Tientsin to trade 
say: “La ville et le port de Tientsin, dans la province de Petcheli, 
seront ouverts au commerce etranger, aux memes conditions que le 
sont les autres villes et ports de TEmpire ou ce commerce est deja 
permis, et cela, a dater du jour de la signature de la presente Con¬ 
vention, qui sera obligatoire pour les deux nations, sans qu’il soit 
ndcessaire d’echanger les ratifications, et qui aura la meme force et 
valeur que si elle etait inseree mot a mot dans le Trait6 de Tientsin.” 

While Great Britain and France which had borne the burden and 
heat of the day thus received satisfaction. General Ignatieff, the 
Russian Minister, was by no means inclined to forego the compen¬ 
sation to which as a friendly intermediary he considered himself 
entitled. He was so skillful in performing the part of an amicus 
curicB that he succeeded in leaving the impression on the mind of 
Prince Rung that it was due to his interposition that Peking was 
saved from destruction when the allied forces were approaching to 
the Capital. Prince Kung, in rewarding him for his friendly media¬ 
tion, concluded with him the Treaty of November 14, i860. By 

950 British and Foreign State Papers, lo et seq. 

'lo The city and the port of Tientsin, in the Province of Chili, are opened to foreign 
commerce under the same conditions as the other cities and ports which are already 
opened to foreign trade, and that this obligation of the two nations shall begin on the 
signing of this convention, without waiting for the exchange of the ratification, and 
this shall have the same force and effect as if it were inserted in the Treaty of Tientsin. 
(51 British and Foreign State Papers, 668 et seq.) 


54 


Treaty Ports in China 

the first three articles of this treaty the territory between the River 
Usuri and the sea was ceded to Russia, or in other words Russia 
acquired a coast-line extending for seven hundred miles by a stroke 
of the pen. Article 8 provides for the mutual protection of mer¬ 
chants, the establishment of consular buildings, and it also defines 
the relation of consuls with local authorities. It provides also the 
consular jurisdiction for civil cases, and it provides for the extradi¬ 
tion of criminals and their punishment. Article lo provides for the 
punishment of criminals according to the laws of their own country 
and the extradition of fugitives. By Article 6 Kashgar was opened 
to trade and it read: “A titre d’essai, le commerce est ouvert a 
Kachgar, sur les niemes bases qu’a Hi et a Tarbagatai. A Kachgar, 
le Gouvernement Chinois cMe un terrain suffisant pour la construc¬ 
tion d’une factorerie avec tons les edifices necessaires, tels que 
maisons d’habitation, magasins pour le depot des marchandises, 
eglise, etc., ainsi qu’un terrain pour le cimetiere, et un paturage, 
comme a Hi et a Tarbagatai. Les ordres seront donnes immediate- 
ment au Gouverneur du pays de Kachgar pour la concession des dits 
terrains. Le Gouvernement Chinois ne repond pas du pillage des 
marchands Russes commergant a Kachgar, dans le case ou ce 
pillage aurait ete commis par des gens venus d’au-dela des lignes 
des postes de garde Chinois.” 

As an experiment, Kachgar is opened to commerce on the same basis as Hi and 
Tarbagatai. At Kachgar, as at Hi and Tarbagatai, the Chinese Government is to 
give territory sufficient for the construction of a factory with all the necessary buildings, 
such as residences, warehouses for the storage of merchandise, church, etc., as well 
as territory for the cemetery, and a pasture ground. Orders on the above terms are 
to be immediately issued to the Governor of Kachgar. The Chinese Government is 
not responsible for the plunder of Russian merchandise at Kachgar, in case the plunder 
is committed by people from beyond the boundary defended by the Chinese Guard. 
(S3 British and Foreign State Papers, 970 et seq.] H. Cordier, L’Expedition de Chine, 
i860, pp. 407-451.) 


Chapter IV 

Treaty Ports in Formosa^ 

The first step in opening the island of Formosa to foreign trade 
was taken up by the diplomatic representatives of America and 
Russia, Mr. Reed and Count Putiatine, who in 1858 were successful 
in inducing the Chinese Government to declare Taiwan open to 
foreign trade and residence. Subsequently, other ports were opened 
by the English and French treaties signed in 1858 and ratified in 
i860. By Article 11 of the English treaty the ports of Newchwang, 
Tangchow (Cheefoo), Taiwan (of Formosa), Chao-chow (Swatow), 
and Kiungchow (Hainan) were declared to be open to foreign trade. 
While by Article 6 of the French treaty there was added to these 
the Formosan port of Tamsui. In 1861 Kelung was added with the 
consent of the Chinese Government as a dependent port of Tamsui, 
and three years later the British obtained the recognition of Takow 
as a dependent port of Taiwan. Robert Swinhoe, the first consular 
representative to visit Formosa, was in December, i860, nominated 
by the British Government as Vice-consul at Taiwan, and Geo. C. 
Braune as assistant. In July, 1861, Mr. Swinhoe arrived at Takow, 
having been conveyed from Amoy aboard the British gunboat 
Cockchafer. He and his staff travelled overland from Takow to 
Taiwanfu, and on arriving at the capital they were installed by the 
authorities in the temple outside the city walls, close to the canal. 

The neighborhood of the temple, however, proved to be an unruly 
one, and the foreigners were pestered by crowds of the people who 
were not always polite in satisfying their curiosity. Mr. Swinhoe 
was obliged to ask assistance from the local authorities to disperse 
the mobs, who were becoming very disagreeable. But to the dismay 
of the Consul, an officer returned with the information that the 
Chinese local authorities were quite unable to drive away the crowds. 

^ Most of the material on this chapter is based upon the following works: North- 
China Herald; Peking Gazette; E. H. House, The Japanese Expedition to Formosa, 
1874; John Dodd, Journal of a Blockaded Resident in North Formosa, 1884; Reports of 
the Imperial Chinese Maritime Customs, 1866-1896 (Shanghai); D. Reiss, Geschichte 
der Insel Formosa, pp. 407-447. 


56 


Treaty Ports in China 

Under these circumstances, Mr. Swinhoe considered that quarters 
within the wall would be more pleasant, so he accepted an invitation 
to spend his first night at a well-to-do Chinese merchant’s residence 
within the walls. Later he secured a comfortable residence there, 
where he remained throughout his stay in Taiwanfu. 

By i860 Taiwanfu declined in importance as a port, and as Tamsui 
offered greater commercial possibilities, so the consulate was trans¬ 
ferred to the port of Tamsui in the middle of December, 1861. The 
Consular Notification says: 

Owing to the greater advantages offered by the harbor of Tamsui above 
all others in the island of Formosa, the undersigned (British Consul) has 
removed his establishment thither from Taiwanfu, and Tamsui therefore 
will henceforth be recognized as the Consular Port opened to British trade 
in Formosa. The limits of the harbor are defined by the bar at the mouth of 
the river to seaward and the gorge some four miles up the river to landward. 

Although the treaty port was at Kobe, the port of Tamsui dis¬ 
trict, the trade was found to be all conducted at Banka, a city adjoin¬ 
ing Twatutia on the north, and some eleven miles from the port. 
Consequently, the English acting-consul at Tamsui succeeded in 
gaining possession from the Chinese authorities to extend the boun¬ 
daries of the treaty port of Tamsui so as to include Banka. The 
British Consul at Tamsui gave this notification on July 7, 1862: 
“This is to give notice to all whom it may concern that the limits 
of this port are extended up the river to include the town of Banka.” 

The Chinese Maritime Customs began operations at Tamsui in 
1863. The first commissioner was Mr. Howell, an Englishman, and 
his successor was Mr. Schenck, nephew of Admiral Schenck of the 
United States Navy. Vessels trading with Takow were obliged to 
proceed to either Amoy, Foochow, or Tamsui to have their cargoes 
assessed before they could go to Takow to discharge, two tidewaiters 
being established at the later port to guard against smuggling. In 
a similar manner, vessels leaving Takow were obliged to make use 
of one of the above-mentioned ports before they were allowed to 
proceed to their several destinations. But this great hindrance was 
done away with, when Mr. William Maxwell opened the Customs 
at Takow on May 5, 1864, as the first Customs Commissioner, and 
established his office on board the opium receiving hulk Pathfinder. 

But the trade in the south was rapidly improving, and the trade 
of Takow and Taiwanfu was already double that of Tamsui. Con- 


57 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 

sequently, the Vice-consul, who had encountered considerable dif¬ 
ficulty in communicating with the Chinese officials at Taiwanfu, 
reestablished his consular office in the South. Mr. Geo. C. P. 
Braune was left in charge of the consular office in the North, which 
was continued as an agency of the South, and in 1865 a British 
consular office was opened at Taiwanfu, under the charge of Mr. 
Thomas Watters. 

Life both on land and sea was not without hardship and danger 
in those days. On shore the natives frequently gave exhibitions of 
their hostility to foreigners, and on the unlighted, and we may say 
uncharted, coasts of the island, numerous pirates hovered. These, 
if they could not capture the speedy foreign craft on the open seas, 
frequently joined with the natives on shore in pillaging any vessels 
that were unfortunate enough to be wrecked. Formosa was indeed 
notorious for wrecks, and escape from the pirates and other wreckers 
was quite exceptional for any vessel that happened to be cast on 
the coast out of sight of the principal ports. 

While the opening of Formosan ports to foreign trade had been 
secured by treaty, yet the recognition of the rights and privileges 
embodied in them was not gained without some struggle. The 
mandarins watched with concern the increasing prosperity of the 
foreigners, and endeavored by every means possible to check foreign 
trade. The local officials had strongly opposed the establishment 
of the Customs service in charge of foreigners, depriving them as it 
did of the many and varied squeezes which they had before imposed 
at their pleasure. Mast dues were a common form of extortion 
which had always been enforced on junks and foreign vessels, and 
it was a great disappointment to the officials to find that, after the 
establishment of the Customs, foreign ships would be exempt from 
these dues. They consequently endeavored to avenge the loss of 
the $40 mast dues by placing every possible obstacle in way of 
foreign trade. A favorite method was occasionally to declare an 
embargo upon the export of rice, thus depriving foreign ships of 
cargo which they expected. Frequent friction resulted between the 
British Consul and the Commissioner of Customs—the latter, acting 
as he did under instructions, refusing to grant an export permit to 
foreigners shipping rice. In 1866, when Mr. White, the Commis¬ 
sioner, refused to grant an export permit to Messrs. MacPhail 
& Co. to ship rice from Taiwanfu to Amoy in their schooner Pearl, 


58 


Treaty Ports in China 


the British acting Consul, Mr. Watters, disposed of the difficulty, 
and himself gave permission to the ship to leave without the usual 
customs clearance, on the owners giving the guarantee required by 
the treaty. The Pearl left Takow on the 9th of June, but was lost on 
her way to Amoy with all her cargo and all hands except one. An 
American schooner, the Tenlee, was the next vessel similarly des¬ 
patched. Meanwhile, Chinese vessels were almost daily exporting 
rice without any opposition. In September of the same year a pass 
was obtained, not, however, without considerable difficulty, by 
Messrs. MacPhail & Co. and they exported under it a considerable 
quantity of rice to Amoy. 

The difficulties between the local government and the few foreign 
residents, which had continued from the first year of the establish¬ 
ment of the Customs, became more numerous and irritating towards 
the close of the sixties, and in 1868 the climax was reached. In 
southern Formosa, British Consular Reports (British Blue Book, 
1869, China No. 3) inform us that the more vexatious of the diffi¬ 
culties began in April of that year, when $6,000 worth of camphor, 
the property of Ellis & Co., was seized at Goche. This was followed 
by a vigorous protest against the seizure on the ground that cam¬ 
phor was bought consistently with the terms of the treaty, which 
expressly stipulated that camphor was one of the articles of legal 
trade. 

The United States gunboat Aroostook was then visiting the 
southern portion of Formosa, and General Le Gendre, the American 
Consul at Amoy, who was on board, joined Mr. Jamieson, the 
acting British Consul at Takow, in a visit to the Taotai at his 
Yamen in Taiwanfu to remonstrate with him on the action of his 
subordinates in the North. There was not much gained by this, 
the Taotai claiming control of all camphor in the island, and denying 
the right of any one to trade in it without his special permission. 
He, however, came to a distinct agreement with the two Consuls 
that the camphor in question should be returned or a money in¬ 
demnity paid instead. 

During this year assaults were committed on several British sub¬ 
jects in Formosa. The British Consul demanded of the Taotai that 
the assailants be punished, and after some difficulties, the Taotai 
promised that justice should be done. On September 2 the British 
Consul, believing that this promise had not been fulfilled, informed 


59 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 

the Pitow magistrate that he would pay him a visit. But he was 
warned not to come, for the reason, as the magistrate stated, that 
the Taotai had not given any orders regarding criminals, that the 
magistrate consequently had nothing to discuss with him, and that 
the people would be much enraged by his presence. 

Soon afterwards, the Amoy Taotai, who had been detailed by 
the Government at Foochow to go to Formosa and settle the ques¬ 
tions in dispute, arrived; but as he was without any definite powers 
to remove any of the offending officers, his visit produced no bene¬ 
ficial result. 

On the 20th of November, the British Consul started from Takow 
with H.M.S. Algerine and BustardAor Anping with the determina¬ 
tion of taking military possession of the Fort of Zelandia and the 
ramparts of the village of Anping, not only as a material guarantee 
in the shape of a reprisal, but as a basis for action, Anping being the 
key to the capital at Taiwan. The reconnoitering party at once 
took possession of the fort and the ramparts of the village, but, as 
the fort was not only ruined but was also within range of the gun¬ 
boat’s guns, the landing force was reembarked and a proclamation 
was published to the effect that the village of Anping and Fort 
Zelandia were held by the British forces and that no other military 
or naval forces would be allowed to enter those places. 

On the 22nd the British Consul returned to Takow and the de¬ 
mands were granted by the Taotai of Amoy after a great deal of 
argument. The removal of the Taotai of Taiwan, of the magistrate 
of Pitow, of the Ting of Lokang, was to be effected by the Amoy 
Taotai taking his steamer to Foochow, and there obtaining imme¬ 
diate dismissal of the offenders by the Viceroy. Among the terms 
of the settlement of this dispute it was provided that the British 
gunboat should hold military possession of Anping until the offend¬ 
ing Chinese officers had been removed. But the Formosan authori¬ 
ties in spite of this settlement began to reoccupy Anping and the 
fort soon after the departure of the Amoy Taotai on the 25th. 
Lieutenant Gurdon, the British military commander, then sent a 
letter to the Chinese military authority informing them that they 
must send the troops out of the town and cease mounting guns on 
the fortifications. As no answer was received, the British military 
forces actually occupied the territory. On the next day a deputa¬ 
tion of the chief merchants of Taiwanfu came to arrange a truce 


6o 


Treaty Ports in China 

with the British military authorities, and agreed immediately to 
pay over the sum of $40,000 as a guarantee that all the demands 
would be fulfilled. This sum was to be returned only after the agree¬ 
ment was ratified by the Provincial Government of Fukien. These 
conditions were complied with, hostilities for the time being ceased, 
and the disputes were eventually settled. The British forces left 
Anping on December 2, 1868. 

The following were the substantial results obtained by the 
British Consul: (i) The camphor monopoly was abolished and proc¬ 
lamations were issued declaring the right of foreigners and their 
employees to go and buy freely. (2) Passports were to be issued by 
the Taotai on application to merchants and others to travel for 
business or pleasure within the island of Taiwan. (3) An indemnity 
of $6,000 was paid Elies & Co. for the loss of camphor. (4) An in¬ 
demnity of $1,167 was paid to the Protestant Mission for loss of 
property. (5) A payment was made of all claims of Elies & Co.’s 
compradore for the loss of property. (6) Liang Taotai, the Pi tow 
District Magistrate, and the Lokang Ting were all removed; and 
the various criminals connected with the various outrages were 
punished to the satisfaction of the Consul. (7) Proclamations were 
issued acknowledging the injustice of the slanders hitherto circu¬ 
lated against Christianity and Christians, and protecting them 
thoroughly against a renewal of such. (8) The right of residence 
and of work by missionaries in the island was recognized. 

While the clouds were gathering over the South, Tamsui in the 
North was in the midst of a storm. The hatred towards foreigners, 
which since the opening of the port had been gradually increasing, 
had now with sympathetic encouragement from some of the man¬ 
darins assumed such proportions that British Acting Vice-Consul 
Holt wrote a despatch to Peking dated October 14, 1848, stating 
that “the situation was so serious that he might be driven at any 
time to haul down his flag. Remonstrances, expostulations, des¬ 
patches, letters, messages, and visits have” he said “alike failed in 
insuring common justice; and our very lives are threatened by 
people whose recent course of action has been so atrocious as to 
prove that the will is not wanting to murder us.” 

As yet no foreigners were established up river from Tamsui, and 
the Chinese were determined that they should not be. Messrs. 
Dodd & Co., a British trading company, were the first firm to make 


6i 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 

the attempt, and it was this that caused the trouble in the North. 
They leased a hong in Banka as a first step in expanding their 
business. But on attempting to take possession of this lease, Mr. 
Crawford D. Kerr, manager of the firm, accompanied by Mr. S. 
Godfrey Bird, a member of the firm, were both wounded by a mob, 
which was threatening to attack the foreign hong. As a consequence 
of this attack, all up-river business in which the foreigners were 
concerned now necessarily came to a standstill. 

The situation became so perilous that Mr. Holt despatched a boat 
to Foochow asking for immediate assistance. Several days later 
the United States gunboat Aroostook arrived to look after American 
interests, and the British gunboat Janus followed a few hours later. 

A settlement of the dispute was then effected. The following 
demands, made by the British consular officer, were granted: (i) 
Four of the principal ring-leaders in the attack on the two foreigners 
were kept in cangues and exposed for one month in front of the 
Yamen; (2) proclamations were issued by the Tamsui Ting, one of 
which was cut in stone and put up in one of the public streets, 
instructing the people to be on friendly terms with the foreigners; 
(3) all property destroyed or stolen was made good; (4) the hostile 
clan was fined $1,000 for the attack. 

The next troublesome episode was the friction with the Japanese 
authorities which resulted in the Japanese Expedition of 1874.2 
The cause of this difficulty was a shipwreck. In the month of 
December, 1871, a large fishing and trading vessel belonging to one 
of the islands of the Miyako group of the Loochoos was wrecked on 
the southern coast of Formosa. Fifty-four of the crew were mur¬ 
dered, and only a few survivors were eventually able to return to 
their homes, and through them the news of the crime was made 
known to the highest authorities with whom they were acquainted. 
On hearing this, the Loochooans sent a commission to Japan in 
1872 asking for protection. In return for this ‘valuable’ protection, 
it was agreed that their territory was henceforth to be considered 
as belonging properly to the Japanese Empire. Japan, conse¬ 
quently, planned an expedition, which was placed under Okuma 
Shigenobu, of the Imperial Council, as commander-in-chief. In 
this expedition, which set sail from Shinagawa in April, 1874, many 

2 H. Cordier, Histoire des relations de la Chine avecles puissances occidentales, 1860- 
1900, vol. i, pp. 530-535* 


62 


Treaty Ports in China 

Americans were employed. On this ground the Viceroy of Fukien 
addressed to the American Consul, Henderson, which with the 
omission of a few lines of courteous greeting, reads 

Now we have investigated this Formosan business, as well as the state¬ 
ments of the Taotai of Formosa and the captain ot the Yang-ua, to the effect 
that this expedition to the savages of Formosa has been planned by the 
former American Consul at Amoy, Le Gendre; also one Cassel, and many 
others assisting. We have also examined and found that Formosa has long 
belonged to China, and the savages are certainly under Chinese jurisdiction, 
and other nations have nothing to do with them. On this occasion Japan 
has sent soldiers to punish the savages without previous consultation with 
the Foreign Office, and the Japanese commander-in-chief, without awaiting 
a communication from me, on his own motion took soldiers and formed a 
camp at Liang-kiau, in entire violation both of International Law and the 
Treaty between China and Japan. We twice sent communications to the 
Board of Trade to be presented to your honorable self, to be examined and 
acted on; all of which are on file. We have received your despatch, in which 
you show your desire to carry out treaty obligations, and in settling matters, 
to preserve lasting peace and friendship, as well as your purpose to perform 
your duties; for all which we desire to express our hearty thanks. We have 
appointed Shen, second in the Board of Trade, and formerly acting prefect 
of Foochow, to go to Amoy, and also have sent a communication to Li, 
Admiral at Amoy, telling him to await the coming of Shen, and then with 
him to have a consultation with the United States Consul, and together 
concert some plan of action. And in accordance with the provisions of 
Article i of the Treaty of the First Year of Hienfung (1858), that the two 
countries shall mutually assist in preserving friendly relations, we ask your 
honorable self to request the commander to take his soldiers back to Japan. 
And if in the vessels that have gone to Formosa there are American citizens 
aiding the Japanese, we ask you to punish those that are acting improperly, 
whether on land or sea, in accordance with the nth Article of the Treaty and 
the laws of your country. From the time when your honorable self arrived 
in China, you have always managed affairs in strict accordance with right, 
so that the streets are full of praises of yourself by rulers and people, and 
ourselves are truly thankful. Now that there are affairs in Formosa, over 
which you are Consul, you can show your friendly feelings by acting in 
accordance with the Treaty, and by taking measures in connection with 
Admiral Li and Prefect Shen. Thus can you show friendly feeling. We have 
sent a communication to Admiral Li, and also one to Prefect Shen ordering 
them to go to Amoy and arrange the whole affair with you, for which purpose 
we give them full powers. And we request 3^011 to act with these two, not 

3 James W. Davidson’s The Island of Formosa, p. 157. 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 63 

only as officials but (also) as friends. Hoping thus, with best regards, etc., 
etc., etc. 

When the American Consul and the two Chinese officials met at 
Amoy, they agreed that notifications must be sent to Formosa to 
warn the American citizens not to violate the law of neutrality. 
The latter in reply undertook to justify their action by an explana¬ 
tion of the condition of affairs, declared that they had no intention 
of assisting in warlike operations and promised to withdraw in the 
event of war with China. 

On the loth of September, Okubo Toshimitsu, an eminent Jap¬ 
anese Minister, came to Peking to settle the dispute; and on October 
31a preliminary agreement was signed and sealed at the office of the 
Tsungli Yamen. This agreement, after reciting in the preamble 
that, as the subjects of every nation must be protected from injury, 
every nation might take efficient measures for the security of its 
subjects; that, if anything injurious happened within the limits of 
any state, the latter should undertake the duty of reparation, and 
that the Japanese troops sent to Formosa to inflict punishment on 
the aborigines for outrages committed upon Japanese subjects, 
would be withdrawn, China assuming the responsibility of measures 
for the future, declared (Article i) that “the present enterprise of 
Japan is a just and rightful proceeding, to protect her own sub¬ 
jects,” and that China “does not designate it as a wrong action”; that 
(Article II) a sum of money should be given by China for the relief 
of the families of the shipwrecked Japanese subjects that were mal¬ 
treated, and for the roads and houses that Japan had constructed 
in Formosa during the military occupation, the amount to be deter¬ 
mined by a special document; and that (Article III), in order to 
prevent any future misunderstanding, all the official correspondence 
on the subject exchanged between the two states should be mutually 
returned and annulled. As to the savages, China engaged to estab¬ 
lish her authority, and promised that navigators shall be protected 
from injury by them. 

Mr. Wade, the British Minister at Peking, offered his good office 
to the representatives of the two countries for the final settlement 
of the dispute. This settlement, as ultimately readied, was as 
follows: China agreed (i) to pay the sum of one hundred thousand 
taels for the relief of the families of the Japanese subjects who were 


64 


Treaty Ports in China 

murdered, and (2) after Japan should have withdrawn her troops, 
to retain for her own use all the roads they had repaired and all the 
houses they had built, paying therefor the sum of four hundred 
thousand taels as recompense. Japan was to withdraw all her 
troops, and China was to pay the whole amount, without fail by 
the 20th of December; but in case the Japanese troops had not then 
been withdrawn, the payment of the money was not to be obliga¬ 
tory.'* In reality, the entire amount was paid by China before 
December i, and General Saigo, having previously received orders 
by a special messenger of rank, took leave of Formosa with his whole 
force on December 3, more than two weeks before the stipulated time. 

In 1877, relations between the Spanish Government and the 
Chinese authorities in Formosa eventually became strained over a 
controversy in regard to the Spanish vessel, Soberana, which was 
wrecked and plundered by the Formosan natives in the year 1863. 
It seems that after fourteen years of fruitless negotiation, the 
Spanish Government at last determined to resort to the old ‘gun¬ 
boat policy’, which had so often been successfully used by Europeans 
in exacting satisfaction from the Chinese authorities. The Chinese 
authorities, not unaccustomed to deal with demands presented in 
this way, promptly paid over, upon the appearance of the Spanish 
Admiral, the sum of 18,000 Spanish dollars, which was sent to 
Madrid and distributed among the survivors and the families of 
those who perished by the loss of the vessel. 

It was at the close of the Franco-Chinese War of reprisals in 1884, 
that Formosa, while taking no part in the main controversy itself, 
was seized as a material guarantee for the payment of an indemnity 
which France had imposed upon the Chinese Government. On 
August 4, the French iron-clad La Galissoniere, bearing the flag of 
Admiral Lespes, and two other French men-of-war, anchored in the 
port of Kelung. The Admiral demanded the surrender of the forts 
guarding the harbor, declaring that, if this demand was not com¬ 
plied with, he would open fire on the forts at 8 o’clock the following 
morning. On the refusal of the Chinese to surrender the place, the 
French gunners commenced operations precisely at the hour an¬ 
nounced. The fortifications were destroyed and the French took 
possession of the city. In the next few days two more French men- 
of-war arrived, making the total five in all. 

* James W. Davidson, The Island of Formosa, pp. 164 et seq. 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 65 

The British Consul, Prater, having received advices from the 
French Admiral, issued a circular on the nth inst., stating that 
foreigners residing at Kelung did so at their own risk. The Customs 
were, however, reopened a few days later with Mr. Brownlow in 
charge, and it appeared that neither the French nor the Chinese 
were interfering with the trade. By the end of August, the French 
had succeeded in holding the shore line at Kelung, but were unable 
to advance beyond it; and as Chinese soldiers had for some days 
been erecting earthworks and digging entrenchments on the hills on 
the east side of the bay overlooking the shipping, the French sent 
word ashore for the Europeans to come on board the Bayard, as they 
intended opening fire on the earthworks which were now just visible. 
The firing was unsuccessful for several days, and this condition of 
affairs continued through September, the French having gained only 
the summits of the near hills surrounding the harbor. 

The French fleet under Admiral Courbet arrived off the port of 
Kobe, October i, and gave notice that the forts would be bombarded 
the next day. At this time all the foreigners were gathered together 
at Tamsui, and it was the general opinion among them that the 
French forces would find Tamsui in their possession in the early 
part of the next day. As early as seven the firing began, and the 
bombardment continued until 8 p. m., after an assault of thirteen 
hours. It was estimated that the French fleet engaged in the bom¬ 
bardment of Tamsui must have fired about 2,000 rounds of ammu¬ 
nition. No further progress was made till the beginning of the 
new year, when the French showed much activity in amassing troops 
at Kelung. On the 3rd of March, they stormed Fort Bamboo, an 
event by which the Chinese authorities were greatly alarmed. 

Nothing of special importance subsequently occurred, however, 
until the 9th of June, when the treaty between China and France 
was signed by which (Article 9) it was stipulated that Formosa and 
the Pescadores Islands should be evacuated. The news of this treaty 
soon reached Formosa, and on June 21 the French forces departed 
from Kelung. Thus, after an occupation of Formosa for more than 
nine months, the French operations in the island came to an end.® 

Previously to the French War, Formosa was but a prefecture of 
Fukien Province, but the Japanese Expedition of 1874 and the 

6 John Dodd, Journal of a Blockaded Resident in North Formosa during the Franco- 
Chinese War, 1884—1885• 


66 


Treaty Ports in China 


hostilities with France suggested to the Peking authorities that the 
island had a strategic value which caused it to be coveted by ambi¬ 
tious powers, and that it could be preserved as a Chinese possession 
only by making radical changes in its political and military govern¬ 
ment. Therefore, in 1887, the island was declared by Imperial 
Decree to be an independent province, and the Imperial Commis¬ 
sioner Liu Ming-chuan was appointed as the first governor. The 
Customs service, which had formerly been under the superintend¬ 
ence of the Tartar General of Foochow, was, from the first of 
December, 1887, placed under the local governor. 

Beginning with this reform, a thorough reorganization and re¬ 
division of the island was necessary. In former days, the prefecture 
of Formosa comprised four districts and three sub-prefectures. Now 
the island became a province with four prefectures (Taipeh, Taiwan, 
Tainan, and Taitung), eleven districts, and three sub-prefectures. 
As a result of these changes and additions, the seat of the govern¬ 
ment, which had been formerly at the old town of Taiwanfu in the 
South—which city had been in turn the capital of the Dutch, 
Koxinga, and the Chinese—was now removed temporarily to the 
new city of Taipeh. Consequently, the big southern city no longer 
remained the capital of the island, and was therefore not entitled 
to bear the name Taiwan (Formosa), but became instead, merely 
the capital or fu of the single prefecture of Tainan. It was, there¬ 
fore, renamed Tainanfu. In this new capital streets were rearranged 
and paved with stone. Electricity was used for lighting purposes; 
and this is believed to be the first instance of the official adoption of 
electricity in any part of the Chinese Empire. Then there was a 
change in the means of inland communication, as a cable steamer, 
the Feichen, was purchased, and in October, 1887, the laying of a 
cable from Anping to Dome Bay in the Pescadores was completed. 
Following this, other telegraphic lines were made, and in 1888 a 
cable line from Sharp Peak at the mouth of the Min River in Fukien 
to Tamsui was completed, thus connecting it with the mainland. 

The progressive spirit of Liu Ming-chuan did not end here, as he 
decided that Formosa should have a railway system, although no 
railway had yet been constructed by officials in the Chinese Empire. 
He determined to improve the harbor of Kelung for the facility of 
international trade, and also to construct a railway from the North 
to the South, so that he could convert Kelung into a shipping port. 



Treaty Ports in Formosa 67 

to the great advantage of peace and commerce. To obtain Im¬ 
perial sanction for this undertaking, he represented to the authori¬ 
ties that, if the capital was removed into the interior as they had 
recommended, it would be necessary, as there were no roads, to 
construct a railway from the new capital to one of the coast ports, 
preferably Kelung in the North. This proposition met with some 
opposition in Peking, but eventually Imperial approbation was ob¬ 
tained. Early in March, 1887, the work was begun, and it was com¬ 
pleted to Kelung in October, 1891. Up to the retirement of Liu 
Ming-chuan in 189^, the progressive changes and reforms succeeded 
in increasing the commercial activities of Formosa. But, after his 
retirement, Shao Yu-lien, his successor in the governorship, although 
he appeared to be enterprising and liberal-minded, took no steps to 
carry out the important reforms which his predecessor had planned. 
Shao held his office until October 21, 1894, when he gave over charge 
of the island to Treasurer Tang Ching-sung, who became acting- 
governor and was the last officer under the Chinese regime to hold 
this position. 

In the summer, 1894, war broke out between China and Japan, 
but in the following spring, hostilities came to an end. Some months 
before the signing of the Treaty of Peace between the two nations, 
the island of Formosa came into the range of possibilities as a future 
possession of Japan. The Eastern press, usually alert, had on this 
subject but little to say. And so well had the Japanese succeeded 
in keeping secret their designs that, even up to the departure of the 
transports for the Pescadores, the newspapers were filled with matter 
pertaining to the march on Peking, with scarcely a reference to 
Formosa. The April telegraphic news of the attack on Li Hung- 
chang, followed by the declaration of an armistice for twenty-one 
days, was good news, and relieved the anxiety of the people for the 
time. However, later details to the effect that the armistice did not 
include Formosa caused a great shock to the whole populace. It 
was quite reasonable to believe that, if the Japanese had demanded 
the insertion of this condition, it was not without some purpose, and 
of this there could be but one explanation: the seizure of Formosa 
by force. 

On March 20, after a five days’ trip from Sasebo naval station, 
the expedition arrived off the Pescadores. But the stormy weather 
on the 21st and 22nd prevented an immediate attack, so that bom- 


68 


Treaty Ports in China 

bardment did not begin until the 23rd. On the 26th inst., the Jap¬ 
anese succeeded in forcing the Chinese garrison to surrender, and 
thus the Pescadores fell into the hands of the Japanese forces. The 
Japanese then advanced to attack Formosa. The excitement in the 
island was very great, and the danger of local disturbance and mob 
violence seemed to be increasing day by day. During the last days 
of April, the situation became so alarming that the Governor called 
a meeting of the Consuls and informed them that he had lost all 
control over his people, including the soldiers; that, unless Foreign 
Powers intervened, or sufficient foreign protection was provided, as 
soon as it was officially known that the treaty ceding Formosa to 
Japan had been ratified, Formosa would be thrown into a state of 
anarchy and rebellion; and that he was unable to protect the lives 
and interests of foreigners on the island. Later events proved that 
he had told the truth. 

On April 26, H.M.S. Spartan arrived, followed by the battleship 
Centurion with the British Admiral on board. Following this, war 
vessels of the other nations came to protect the foreign lives and 
interests in the island. 

During the early half of May the atmosphere was thick with rows 
and riots. Scarcely a day passed without news of some disturbance 
in the island. These were confined to the Chinese, the soldiers 
being usually the offenders and the villagers the victims. 

The negotiations for peace took place at Shimonoseki, Japan, and 
the first meeting with Count I to and Viscount Mutsu, the Japanese 
plenipotentiaries, was on March 20. The report of the conferences 
was published by an English journal, the. Peking and Tientsin Times, 
and the discussions between the Chinese and Japanese plenipoten¬ 
tiaries as given in this journal are said to be correct. Such portions 
as refer to Formosa are herewith reproduced: 

The subject of ceding Formosa to Japan was not discussed until the third 
conference. Then Count I to remarked in a casual sort of way, ‘‘Our forces 
have now gone to Formosa; I don’t know what sort of people they are in the 
island.” “Colonists from Kwangtung,” said the Viceroy (Li Hung-chang), 
“and very turbulent they are.” Count Ito: “Some savages are still left?” 
The Viceroy: “The savages occupy three-tenths, the colonists the remaining. 
To continue the subject, since the Minister has introduced the Formosan 
question, I presume the wish to occupy it accounts for the unwillingness to 
grant an armistice. It will not be very palatable to Great Britain, and when 



Treaty Ports in Formosa 69 

I spoke of the possibilities of clashing with the interests of other powers, I 
had this in my mind. What if we lose it?” Count Ito: “An injury to China 
is not an injury to Great Britain.” The Viceroy: “Formosa and Hongkong 
are very near each other.” Count Ito: “War between two Powers does no 
injury to a third.” The Viceroy: “Great Britain is said to be unwilling that 
any other Power should occupy Formosa.” Count Ito: “If China were to 
present Formosa to any Power, I fancy it would be received smilingly enough.” 
The Viceroy: “Formosa having been ranked among the provinces cannot be 
given to any Power” . 

The subject of Formosa was again brought up towards the close of the 
fourth conference, held on the loth of April, by the Viceroy stating that he 
could not give up Formosa. “In that case, I must take it,” said the Count. . . 

During the fifth conference held on April 15th, the cession of Formosa was 
again referred to. With both Liaotung Peninsula and Formosa in view, 
the Viceroy complained that the territory Japan asked for was too large, and 
had great possibilities; but Count Ito said that whatever resources existed 
in the new territory had to be developed, and could not be regarded as a 
set-off to the indemnity. Besides as any wealth that might accrue would be 
spent in the territory, there would be no surplus . . . “Again there is 

the expense of development,” said the Count. “The greater the expenditure,” 
said the Viceroy, “the greater the return. Since in the future the gain will 
be so solid, what can stand in the way of a slight reduction? In that case it 
would be easier for China to borrow the requisite amount. When I was in 
Peking, some foreigners were ready to lend twenty millions sterling on the 
security of Formosa ... So much having been offered with the island 
as a pledge, naturally it could have been sold for much more.” Count Ito 
refused to talk over, though the Viceroy begged again and again for only a 
little concession in either money or territory. 

The discussion now passed to the question of the position of Chinese land¬ 
holders in the territory ceded to Japan, and the Viceroy asked that absentee 
proprietors might be confirmed in the possession of their property as securely 
as Japanese subjects. Count Ito pointed out that this was difficult, as aliens 
cannot possess real property in Japan. The Viceroy said that he referred to 
land which had been handed down from father to son for generations, but 
Count Ito explained that “if Japan allows Chinese to own real property in the 
interior, then Foreign Powers will certainly avail themselves of the most favored 
nation clause to put obstacles in our way” . . . Then a long discussion 

took place as to the time within which Formosa was to be handed over, the 
Viceroy proposing that the cession should be completed in six months after 
the exchange of ratifications. Count Ito would not hear of six months, and 
proposed that officials be sent to effect the transfer immediately after the 
exchange of ratifications . . . After some more discussion as to the date 

of the transfer. Count Ito had a clause drawn up to the effect that within a 


70 


Treaty Ports in China 

month after the exchange of ratifications the two countries should send High 
Commissioners to arrange the transfer . . . The Viceroy: “Everything 

is in a state of confusion. Two months would allow things to become com¬ 
paratively settled. Why be in such a hurry about Formosa when it is actually 
in your mouth?” Count Ito: “We have not swallowed it yet, and we are very 
hungry.” The Viceroy: “Two hundred millions are enough to appease your 
appetite for a time. After the exchange of ratifications it will be necessary 
to memorialize the Throne to send commissioners, and a month is too little.” 

. At last after bandying the matter for some time to and fro the clause 
as it appears in the treaty was agreed to: “Each of the two governments 
shall, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of the present Act, 
send one or more commissioners to Formosa to effect a final transfer of that 
province, and within the space of two months after the exchange of the rati¬ 
fications of this Act, such transfer shall be completed.” And after all, there 
is good reason to believe that, but for the firmness of Mr. Foster, the American 
adviser, the Chinese would have tried to evade this clause of the treaty. 

The fifth conference was the last. Count Ito declaring that the 
demands both for indemnity and the cession of territory being final, 
so they were no longer open to discussion. The treaty was accord¬ 
ingly signed on the 17th, three days before the expiration of the 
armistice, and ratified at Chefoo, China, on May 8, 1895. 

No doubt the higher officials of the island were informed of the 
signing of the treaty at Shimonoseki soon after it occurred; but to 
the people in general nothing was known further than that the 
cession of the island to Japan was very probable. To protest against 
this, a commission, consisting of a number of prominent residents 
backed by all the censors, board secretaries, and literati hailing 
from Formosa and Fukien provinces, visited Peking and presented 
a number of memorials to the Emperor, praying that the island 
should not be ceded to Japan. 

Just previous to the declaration of independence by the literati 
of Formosa, a memorial consisting of sixteen characters was tele¬ 
graphed to the Emperor at Peking by the provincial government of 
the island. It ran as follows: “The literati and people of Formosa 
are determined to resist subjection to Japan. Hence they have 
declared themselves an independent Island Republic, at the same 
time recognizing the suzerainty of the Sacred Tsing dynasty.” 

On the 23rd of May, the new government was announced as 
organized, and the declaration, of which a translation follows, was 
widely published: 


Treaty Ports in Formosa 71 

Official Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Formosa 

The Japanese have affronted China, by annexing our territory of Formosa, 
and the supplications of us, the people of Formosa, at the portals of the Throne 
have been made in vain. We now learn that the Japanese slaves are about 
to arrive. 

If we suffer this, the land of our hearths and homes will become the land 
of savages and barbarians, but if we do not suffer it, our comparative weak¬ 
ness will certainly not endure long. Frequent conferences have been held 
with the Foreign Powers, who all aver that the people of Formosa must 
establish their independence before the Powers will assist them. 

Now therefore, we, the People of Formosa, are irrevocably resolved to die 
before we will serve the enemy. And we have in Council determined to 
convert the whole island of Formosa into a Republican State, and that the 
administration of all our State affairs shall be organized and carried on by 
the deliberations and decisions of officers publicly elected by us the People. 
But as in this enterprise there is needed, as well as for the resistance of 
Japanese aggression as for the organization of the new administration, a man 
to have chief control, in whom authority shall center, and by whom the peace 
of our homesteads shall be assured—therefore, in view of the respect and 
admiration in which we have long held the Governor and Commander-in- 
Chief, Tang Ching-sung, we have in Council determined to raise him to the 
position of President of the Republic. 

An official seal has been cut out, and on the second day of fifth moon, at 
the ssu hour, (9 a. m.. May 25th), it will be publicly presented with all respect 
by the notables and people of the whole of Formosa. At early dawn on that 
day, all of us, notables and people, farmers and merchants, artisans and 
tradesmen, must assemble at the Tuan Fang Meeting House, that we may 
in grave and solemn manner inaugurate this undertaking. 

Let there be neither delay nor mistake. A Declaration of the whole of 
Formosa. 

{Seal in red as follows) An Announcement by the Whole of Formosa. 

On May 25th, when the independence of the Republic was for¬ 
mally declared, two Japanese men-of-war arrived before Formosa. 
These two vessels, the Naniwa and Takachiho, had come on in 
advance of Admiral Kabayama’s party, who were to follow in a 
few days to take possession of the island. Following this the 
Japanese fleet and transports arrived at Formosa on the 26th of 
May, and landing at Samtiao roadstead began on the 29th. From 
this time on the Japanese advanced toward the capital and the 
revolution was crushed after the middle of June. 


72 


Treaty Ports in China 


Although up to June i the Japanese for three days had their 
forces on shore, the final transfer of Formosa was yet to take place. 
Lord Li Ching-fang, the son of Li Hung-chang, had been deputed as 
Imperial Commissioner to hand over the island. Li did not regard 
this as a desirable task, quite understanding that the further he and 
his illustrious father kept away from the new-born republic the 
better for them both. Li Hung-chang had accordingly memorialized 
the Throne in respect of the unsuitability of the appointment, and 
also of his own inability to be present, on account of sickness. The 
anti-Li faction, however, was too strong, and his excuses were not 
accepted. Lord Li then applied to the Shanghai Taotai for a force 
of one hundred foreign drilled men as a body-guard, but he was 
likewise unsuccessful even in this. Li Ching-fang, now greatly dis¬ 
turbed, made overtures to the Japanese that they should first 
suppress the revolution before he formally handed over the island. 
Without taking into consideration this rather curious request, the 
Japanese appreciated the embarrassing position in which Li Ching- 
fang was placed, and granted him permission to make the formal 
transfer on board a Japanese man-of-war. Highly plgased with this 
concession. Lord Li and his secretaries left on the last day of May, 
aboard the Kung-yi, via the Pescadores, and arrived off Samtiao 
Point on June 2nd, where an interview was held with Governor- 
General Kabayama then aboard the Yokohama Maru, and after 
lengthy negotiations, on the second and third of June, the transfer 
of the island was formally effected. Thus the valuable island 
passed out of the administration of the Chinese Government.® 

® James W. Davidson, The Island of Formosa, pp. 270-300. 


Chapter V 

The Development of the Treaty Ports Since i860 

§ I. Delimitation of the Settlement at Ningpo. 

On January 13, 1862, a conference was held at the United States 
Consulate at Ningpo for the discussion of the government of for¬ 
eigners residing at the port. At this meeting Mr. W. P. Mangum, 
the United States Consul, Mr. Frederick Harvey, the British Consul, 
and M. Leon Obry, the French Consul, were all present. During the 
conference the problems of the protection of life and property, and 
the general security, order and good government of foreigners resid¬ 
ing at Ningpo, were carefully considered, and as a result of the meet¬ 
ing the following regulations were agreed upon by the consuls 
present: (i) “That tract of land or country or promontory known 
as the Keang Pih-Sete, and comprised within the boundaries or 
limits drawn by the Yung River, the Yu Yau, a branch of the said 
river, the Pih-Sha-Ho Creek, and a line drawn across the field from 
the Sge-chow-taue (or temple) to join the Yu Yau River above men¬ 
tioned, (the whole site forming an irregular quadrilateral or trape¬ 
zium), shall from this date and hereafter be assumed and considered 
as the foreign site, within which foreigners shall reside free from any 
interference of any nature whatsoever, subject always to their 
respective treaty obligations.” (2) However, the consuls reserved 
to themselves the right to make and establish such rules and regu¬ 
lations within the limits above mentioned as the future necessities 
of the settlement might render necessary, such regulations to be in 
conformity with the provisions of their respective treaties with the 
Chinese Government.^ 

§ 2. Plan for the Municipal Government of Shanghai. 

The remodeling of the municipal government of Shanghai formed 
an exciting problem in 1863. The committee appointed for this 
purpose decided that the opinion of Mr. Bruce, the British Minister, 
on the status of the treaty ports was ‘unquestionably sound’, and 
that the only course for the community to take was to form a munic- 

1 United States Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, pp. 856-857. 


74 


Treaty Ports in China 

ipal system on the principles laid down by him. Accordingly, they 
drew up a plan founded upon those principles, which were, briefly: 
(i) that “whatever authority (territorial authority) is established 
shall be derived directly from the Imperial Government through our 
ministers;” (2) that such “authority will not extend beyond simple 
municipal matters—roads, police, and taxes for municipal objects;” 
(3) that the Chinese, “not actually in foreign employ, shall be wholly 
under the control of the Chinese officers, just as much as in a Chinese 
city;” (4) that “each consul shall have the government and control 
of his own people, as now, the municipal authorities simply arresting 
offenders against the public peace, handing them over and prose¬ 
cuting them before respective authorities, Chinese or other, as the 
case may be;” and (5) that there “shall be a Chinese element in the 
municipal system, to which reference shall be made, and assent 
obtained to any measure affecting the Chinese residents, if the 
necessary concurrence can be obtained that all the foreign quarters 
shall be united under one municipal system.” 

On April 16, 1863, the American Consul at Shanghai submitted 
this plan to Mr. Anson Burlingame, the American Minister. Imme¬ 
diately on the receipt of the letter, Mr. Burlingame entered into 
communication with the British, Russian, and French Ministers, 
and after conferring with them and ascertaining their views, he 
informed the Consul that they all concurred in the principles and 
would unite in recommending the proposed plan to the Chinese 
Government. The Chinese authorities in turn accepted the plan, 
and there was thus laid the foundation of a municipal system for 
Shanghai which is now regarded as the ‘model’ settflement in China.^ 

§ 3 • Opposition to the granting of an exclusive concession sought by 
the French Consul, and the understanding reached with Foreign Min¬ 
isters not to seek exclusive concessions in the treaty ports. 

On August 17, 1862, M. Edan, the French Consul, undertook to 
secure the concession of a portion of the port of Ningpo to the French 
Government, addressing an official communication to the Ningpo 
Taotai to this effect: 

It is expedient that a place may be fixed for the French concession . 

I pray his excellency (the Taotai) to make known by public proclamation 
that in virtue of his powers, and conformably to the treaties of France with 

2 United States Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, pp. 851-857; North-China Herald, 
April-August, 1863. 


75 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

China, it has determined that the limits of the quarter designed for the resi¬ 
dence of the French shall be those hereafter to be known: at the east, the 
river which leads to Tchenpai; at the south and west, the river which leads 
to Yu Yao; at the north, a line drawn from the pavilion of the greenhouse 
to the pavilion of the pagoda called Yangshen Tsonye, and serving for the 
preparation of tea; this line, prolonged to the river of Yu Yao, goes to meet 
the land of a Chinese called Sic. I pray you, moreover, honorable Taotai, 
to have the goodness to announce in this notification: first, that in the case 
where indigenous proprietors should refuse to sell to the French in the limits 
defined above, or exact any prices which are not conformable to the Chinese 
prices current, you will intervene to endeavor to make the people obey the 
prescriptions of the article of the treaty above; and, second, that as for the 
subjects of other empires who would wish to make a settlement in the quarters 
which are now in question, they should have to explain themselves to this 
effect with the consul of the nation which this proclamation concerns. By 
that a proof will be given to foreigners that the French authorities, in claim¬ 
ing a concession of ground for their countrymen have not had in view to hinder 
respectable interests from establishing themselves by the side of them, but 
that they have wished only to make a reservation in favor of interests which 
they have for a special duty to protect. 

The American Consul protested against this demand for a sep¬ 
arate French concession, and on August 29 he addressed to the 
French Consul a note saying: “I . . frankly confess that a 

sense of duty compels me to refuse my assent to the step you have 
taken as being in direct contravention to the understanding among 
the three treaty powers at the conference held on the 13th of January 
last, and ratified at the conference held on the 31st of May last 
. In fact, sir, when we take into consideration the situation 
of the property belonging to foreigners here, mixed together in all 
conceivable ways, I do not see how separate concessions can be 
made in the Kiang Pilo settlement without great injustice to the 
citizens of at least two of the treaty powers.” 

Later, on September 4, the American Consul referred the matter 
to the American Minister, who immediately, in an interview with the 
Chinese authorities at Peking, supported the Consul’s contention, not 
only because the French Consul’s attempt was in violation of the 
arrangement made on January 13, but on the broad ground that “any 
concession of territory would be an abridgement of our (American) 
treaty rights;” and the Minister warned the Chinese authorities that 
such concessions, if made, would not only destroy American treaty 


76 Treaty Ports in China 

rights, but would be the beginning of the disruption of the Empire. 
The Chinese Government replied that it had not granted such con¬ 
cession, nor would it, and thanked the American Minister for taking 
a position so much in accordance with their rights. Mr. Burlingame, 
the United States Minister, in his letter dated April i8, 1863, to Mr. 
Seward, Secretary of State, said: “I never failed in my interviews 
to keep the non-concession doctrine before them (the Chinese 
authorities), because I had been made aware in Shanghai, by con¬ 
versations with the British Consul, that he and the British residents 
supposed they had a quasi territorial concession at Shanghai over 
which they could maintain jurisdiction not only over British sub¬ 
jects, but over Chinese. This assumption led the French to make 
like claims, and the result was that there was a race, apparently, 
between the British and French local authorities as to which could 
secure the most. I brought the question, in many conversations, 
to the attention of the British and Russian Ministers, and, since 
his arrival, to the French Minister. I am happy to say that I found 
my views accorded with theirs, and that we are now, on this most 
important question, in perfect agreement; and this agreement is a 
guarantee of the territorial integrity of the Chinese Empire.” 

In referring to the legal status of the so-called 'foreigners’ con¬ 
cessions’, the British Minister, Sir F. W. A. Bruce, wrote to the 
British Consul at Shanghai that “the British concession at Shang¬ 
hai was neither a transfer nor a lease of the land in question to the 
British crown,” but was “simply an agreement that British subjects 
should be allowed to acquire land for their personal accommodation 
within a certain space, in order that they might have the advantage 
of living together. The land so acquired remains,” said the British 
Minister, “Chinese territory; it is subject to the land tax; and if 
the jurisdiction of the Chinese Government over it is desired, it is 
denied, because in China it was deemed essential for the security 
of British trade that the person and establishment of the trader 
should be secured from molestation. But the character of the 
concession has been entirely altered by the acts of foreigners 
themselves. Instead of being a foreign settlement, it has become a 
Chinese city, in which a few foreigners reside, amidst a large 
Chinese population. The security and comfort which were sup¬ 
posed to be derived from isolating the foreign community have been 
sacrificed, and land has been acquired, not for the legitimate pur- 


77 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

pose of accommodating foreigners, but in order to build on it 
Chinese houses, which are tenanted by Chinese at high rents, 
attracted by the protection our bayonets afford, and by immunity 
from their natural authorities.” Further, he said that the Chinese 
authorities were deprived of the power of dealing with them, as the 
Chinese residents were to be taxed for municipal purposes, and that 
the Chinese Government’s interference was to be limited to judg¬ 
ment and punishing them in cases tried before the “mixed consular 
and municipal government.” He therefore declared it to be his 
duty to remind the British Consul that the Chinese Government 
had never formally abandoned its rights over its own subjects, 
nor had the British government ever claimed or expressed any 
desire to exercise a “protectorate over them.” And in conclusion, 
he said: “I don’t understand what interest Her Majesty’s govern¬ 
ment has in lending itself to a system which is unjustifiable in 
principle, which would be attended with endless embarrassment 
and responsibility, and which the Chinese Government would never 
submit to willingly. Great Britain has no interest except in providing 
a secure place for British trading establishments; and whatever 
inconveniences may arise from the conversion of the settlement 
into a Chinese town, I do not think Her Majesty’s government 
will be induced to seek a remedy for them by extending its juris¬ 
diction over a larger section of the Chinese population. Because 
we protect Shanghai from falling into a prey to a horde of brigands, 
it does not follow that we are prepared to interfere with the natural 
relation of the Chinese to their own Government ... I am 
convinced that Her Majesty’s government would wish to see the 
limits of the so-called concession reduced, so as to exclude the 
Chinese, rather than extended, so as to embrace a greater number 
of them. Our interests in China are trade and pacific relations with 
the authorities; and I know no more fertile sources of misunder¬ 
standing than the collection of Chinese within our limits. This is 
not a question which affects Shanghai alone; it affects our rela¬ 
tions with the whole Chinese Empire; and, considering the effect 
of our example, it is of the utmost importance that we should 
take no step which cannot be defended upon sound international 
principle.” ® 

3 United States Diplomatic Correspondence, 1863, pp. 850-859, 863, 882; North- 
China Herald, 1862-1863. 


78 Treaty Ports in China 

§ 4. The Regulations of the French Municipal Government at 
Shanghai. 

Although there was a joint proposition of the foreign ministers 
in Peking for some kind of simultaneous action on the question of 
a common municipality at Shanghai, and although M. de Bellonet, 
the French Charge d’Affaires, recommended a fusion of the entire 
foreign settlement under one municipality, yet his plan was over¬ 
ruled at Paris. In 1866, a committee was appointed in Paris to 
devise an organization for the administration of municipal affairs 
at the French concession at Shanghai. The plan that they made 
was approved by the Paris government and came into force on 
September, 1866. These regulations for the municipal organization 
of the French concession at Shanghai were proclaimed by the French 
Consul at Shanghai for public notification. The characteristic 
feature of French rule, great centralization, is apparent in every 
article, and, indeed, one is a little puzzled, after reading them over, 
to know what the Consul cannot, and what the council can do, 
for the former is everything, and without him the latter is nothing. 
He convokes it when he likes, suspends or dissolves it if he pleases, 
and then nominates a provisional council for three or six months, 
which seems likely to be seldom needed, however, for he can veto 
or suspend every act it passes, until he reports to the French Minister 
at Peking; and finally, the police is placed under his sole control. 
In Article i of this regulation it provides that the municipal body 
of the French concession at Shanghai is composed of the Consul- 
general of France, and of eight municipal counselors, four of which 
are French and four foreign, all to be chosen by election; that the 
municipal counselors are chosen for two years but to be renewed by 
half every year. Article 2 provides that all Frenchmen and for¬ 
eigners of twenty-one years old are electors under the following 
conditions: {a) Those owning real property with a good title within 
the limits of the concession; {h) Those renting land in the con¬ 
cession with an annual rent above 1,000 francs; (c) Those living in 
the concession over three months, with an annual revenue of 4,000 
francs. Article 3 provides that the Consul-general makes out the 
electoral list, revises it annually, and convokes the assembly of 
electors; and that the electoral operations are verified by the 
municipal council. Article 4 provides for the qualification of 
members of the assembly of electors, and Article 5 provides for 


79 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

secret ballot. Article 6 provides that the council will not assemble 
until called together by the Consul-general, but it may be convened 
whenever half the members petition it in writing. Article 7 provides 
that the Consul-general has a right to preside over the council; that 
the other officers shall consist of a vice-president and a treasurer, 
chosen by the council every year from its members; and that 
deliberations are decided by a majority, but in case of a tie the 
president decides. Article 8 provides that the Consul-general has 
the right to suspend or dissolve the municipal council, but must 
give his reasons for it to the minister of foreign affairs and to the 
French Minister at Peking; that the suspension must not exceed 
three months. It also provides that in case of dissolution the 
electoral assembly must be convoked in six months from the time 
of the dissolution. It further provides that in the meantime a 
provisional commission, formed by the Consul-general, takes the 
place of the municipal council. Article 9 provides that the municipal 
council shall discuss the following subjects: (a) The municipal 
budget of receipts and expenses; {h) The tariff for collecting the 
municipal revenues^ (c) The regulation of dues among the tax¬ 
payers; {d) Petitions for exemption or reduction of tax; {e) The 
mode of collecting the tax; (/) The purchases, sales, exchange, and 
location of municipal property; (g) Opening streets and public 
squares, and the construction of other public works; Qi) Labors 
to promote health, and work on roads; {i) Seizure of property for 
public use; (7) Regulations concerning roads and the public health; 
{k) Upon all other subjects to which the attention of the council is 
called by the Consul-general. Article 10 provides that the delibera¬ 
tions of the municipal council are not in force until signed by the 
Consul-general; that the Consul-general must execute every delibera¬ 
tion of subjects in Paragraphs a to / of the 9th Article within eight 
days, but the Consul may refuse to execute a deliberation of the 
municipal council on the subjects enumerated in Paragraphs h to k 
of the preceding article, provided the French Minister at Peking 
approved such action. Article 2 provides that the sessions of the 
municipal council may be public, and the debates in secret session 
may be published according to special decisions of the council, 
approved by the Consul-general; and that sessions in which the 
council fixes the annual budget of receipts and expenses must always 
be public, unless a majority of the council oppose it. Article 12 


8o 


Treaty Ports in China 

provides that the municipal council has charge of highways, water 
distribution, lighting the streets, municipal property, execution of 
works of public utility, fixing the tax lists, and collection of the 
municipal revenues; that it will also prosecute delinquent tax¬ 
payers; that it elects its secretary; and that it also appoints all 
employees in the municipal service, and suspends or revokes their 
commissions. Article 13 provides that the Consul-general is charged 
with the preservation of order and public safety in the limits of the 
concession; that he.has charge of the police force, the expenses of 
which are paid by the municipality, and that he appoints their 
agents, suspends or revokes their commissions. Article 14 provides 
that violations of road regulations are tried by a delegate of the 
municipal council, with appeal to the Consul-general; that violations 
of police regulations are judged by the Consul-general or one of its 
officers; and that in case of prosecution for non-payment of taxes 
the municipal receiver summons the delinquent before the consular 
court. Article 15 provides that if the person tried for one of the 
three causes mentioned is not a Frenchman, and objects to the 
competency of the judges, he must be sent before the judges of 
his nation. Article 16 provides that no foreigner can be arrested 
within the limits of the concession by order of a judge or foreign 
court without permission from the Consul-general of France or one 
of his agents. Article 17 provides that the Consul-general, when 
he thinks proper, and after consulting the municipal council, may 
call an extra assembly of the electors, and even all the French and 
foreigners, who have no vote in the concession, to get their opinion 
on questions of general interest to be submitted to them. Article 
18 provides that in case of the absence of the Consul-general, or a 
vacancy in his office, all the powers and prerogatives conferred 
upon the Consul-general by the present regulations shall devolve 
upon the agent of the consulate. 

On receiving copies of these regulations, the British Consul, Mr. 
C. A. Winchester, and the American Consul, Mr. Geo. F. Seward, 
considered them together carefully, and on July 9 addressed a 
joint note to Viscount de Montmorand, the French Consul at 
Shanghai, requesting him to delay their publication, and in this 
letter they said: 

We foresee many difficulties in making these regulations applicable to 
persons not French subjects who may be resident within the limits to which 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 81 

they refer. So far as regards Englishmen and Americans, any rules, to be 
obligatory, must be made or enacted by their own authorities, as is provided 
by the two governments. Until they have been ratified in the proper quarters 
we can take, therefore, no steps to aid in enforcing them . . . We believe, 

moreover, that the tenor of the regulations will not fail to give rise to the 
impression that it is the intention of the government of France to assume 
territorial dominion in China, an intimation which we do not in the least 
attribute to it, because it is directly opposed to the policy of cooperation 
which has heretofore received the sanction of the several governments. 

. Considering that it cannot be the desire of the government of France 
to abridge the privileges of the people of other nations living here, or to give 
rightful ground to any to believe, that it is its intention to assert unusual 
powers here, and considering that a general desire has been expressed in high 
quarters for a reference to the several governments concerned, with a view 
to the delineation of a general basis for the management of municipal matters 
in Shanghai, we suggest that the publication of the regulations be delayed 
until information can be had from Peking as to whether the reference referred 
to has been made. 

Viscount de Montmorand replied on July 10 that he could not 
delay the publication of the regulations as requested and said: “I 
cannot accede to your wishes in delaying the publication of the 
regulations in question . . . my orders are positive, and I can¬ 

not disobey them. But, from courtesy, and to show you my wish 
to harmonize with you, I take the responsibility to delay the execu- 
cution of the regulations till the ist of September, instead of carry¬ 
ing them into effect immediately, as I was instructed.” He also 
stated: “Yet I am happy to see that, though you fear these regu¬ 
lations may give cause to believe the French government intends 
to extend its territorial dominion in China, you entertain no such 
idea. You are right in this case, I am sure. In fact, the only in¬ 
tention of the French government is to preserve the rights the 
Chinese Government has granted it in virtue of Article 22 of the 
treaty signed in 1844 between Mr. Lagranee and the Chinese Gov¬ 
ernment. I can, then, give you the firm assurance that the French 
government has not the least intention or desire to diminish the 
privileges of the inhabitants of Shanghai, to whatever nation they 
may belong, or to claim extraordinary powers in China.” 

On receiving this explanation, the American Consul at Shanghai 
wrote to the French Consul, Viscount de Montmorand, on July ii, 
reserving the obedience of the United States citizens to these regu- 


82 


Treaty Ports in China 

lations in whose formation they had had no voice. Then the 
American Consul also wrote to the American Minister at Peking on 
the same day, and in the meantime he also forwarded those cor¬ 
respondence to his superior at Peking. In this note, the American 
Consul, Mr. Geo. F. Seward, said: “The treaties of foreign govern¬ 
ments with China . . . provide for the complete removal of the 

citizens of these several countries from amenability to the govern¬ 
ment of China, and authorize each government to extend an inter¬ 
current jurisdiction over its respective nationalities. There is no 
treaty between the several foreign governments, or any of them, 
which grants to either or any of them jurisdiction of any kind over 
the citizens of another or other powers; nor is there any authority 
in the Chinese Government to grant such jurisdiction, since it has 
already renounced in favor of the several nationalities, individually, 
all its natural powers over their respective citizens. It is manifest, 
then, that to form at any port a municipal establishment which 
shall be enabled to levy taxes and collect them at law, qualifications 
of fundamental importance, it is indispensable that the authorities 
of the several nationalities shall concur in creating regulations 
having such intent and effect. The principle thus set forth has 
received general support. So long ago as 1854 a code of land regu¬ 
lations was framed by the Consuls of England, France, and the 
United States, then representing almost the whole of the foreign 
interests involved. They were approved by the ministers of those 
powers, and by the Chinese government through its local repre¬ 
sentative. They have received from time to time the sanction of 
other powers, and nothing should have remained but to improve 
and enlarge them as circumstances might demand.” 

The American Minister at Peking on July 30 replied Mr. Geo. F. 
Seward, the United States Consul at Shanghai, in which he com¬ 
mended the spirit and cooperation between the British and Ameri¬ 
can Consuls’ protest against the violation of their rights by the 
new code of ‘reglements’ for the French concession at Shanghai. 

Then the American Minister at Peking referred this matter to 
Mr. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, who immediately in¬ 
structed Mr. John A. Dix, the American Minister at Paris, to 
communicate this matter to the French government, and on July 
24, 1867, the French government replied that “in regard to the 
cabinet of London, I am happy to find myself able to announce to 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 83 

you . . . that it gives its complete adhesion to the French 

municipal regulations. It recognizes that the fusion of the two 
establishments situated on the north and south of the Yang-King- 
Pang is henceforth impracticable, and that on the other hand it 
cannot contest the right of the Imperial Government to regulate, 
as it has done, by delegated authority from the court of Peking, the 
administration of the quarter especially appropriated as the resi¬ 
dence of French subjects. One single provision had raised on its 
part some objections, which I was examining at the time when I 
received your communication, and which I fortunately succeeded 
in removing. It had appeared to the London cabinet that the i6th 
article of the regulations did not protect in terms sufficiently explicit 
the principle of the rights of persons, and it demanded that the 
sense of the article should be defined by an explanatory declaration 
intended to prevent any application contrary to these principles. 
To respond still more completely to its desire, and to prevent 
analagous objections which might be presented hereafter by other 
governments, I have decided to alter the i6th article entirely, and 
have announced my intention to substitute the following provision: 
‘The Consul-general, in concert with the authorities under whose 
jurisdiction the foreign residents may be placed, and in accordance 
with the principles of a just reciprocity, shall determine the manner 
of the execution of the warrants of arrest, which their authorities 
may issue, as well as of all judgments and orders of seizure issued 
against strangers, resident or in transit in the concession’. The 
British government declared immediately that this change satisfied 
entirely the objections which it had felt obliged to make.” ^ 

§5. The Chef00 Convention of September ij, i8y6, between China 
and Great Britain. 

By Article i of Section 3 of this agreement signed at Chefoo 
between the two countries it is provided that no li-kin should be 
collected in the treaty ports; that the Chinese Government will 
open Ichang, Wuhu, Wenchow, and Pakhoi as treaty ports; that 
“the British government will, further, be free to send officers to 
reside at Chungking to watch the conditions of British trade in 
Ssu-chuen. British merchants will not be allowed to reside at 

4 United States Diplomatic Correspondence, 1866, Part I, pp. 528-536; 1867, Part I, 
pp. 77. 19s. 200, 269, 270, 271, 465, 508, 509. 


84 Treaty Ports in China 

Chungking, or to open establishments or warehouses there, so 
long as no steamers have access to the port. When steamers have 
succeeded in ascending the river so far, further arrangements can 
be taken into consideration.” Article 2 provides that at all treaty 
ports, whether opened by earlier or later agreement, at which no 
settlement area has been previously defined, it will be the duty of 
the British Consul, acting in concert with his colleagues, the consuls 
of other powers, to come to an understanding with the local authori¬ 
ties regarding the definition of the foreign settlement areas. By 
Article 2 of Section 2 it provides that the British government is 
going to revise the special code for governing the British Supreme 
Court at Shanghai; that it is now understood that the Tsungli 
Yamen will write a circular to the legations, inviting foreign repre¬ 
sentatives at once to consider with the Tsungli Yamen the measures 
needed for the more effective administration of justice at the treaty 
ports. The third article provides that so long as the laws of the two 
countries differ from each other, there can be but one principle to 
guide judicial proceedings in mixed cases in China, namely, that the 
case is tried by the official of the defendant’s nationality, the official 
of the plaintiff’s nationality merely attending to watch the proceed¬ 
ings in the interests of justice, and if the officer so attending be 
dissatisfied with the proceedings, it will be in his power to protest 
against them in detail, and the law administered will be the law 
of the nationality of the officer trying the case. 

On March 31, 1890, an additional article to the Agreement be¬ 
tween Great Britain and China of September 13, 1876, was signed 
at Peking between the two Powers. Section I provides for the 
opening of Chungking to be a treaty port, and that British subjects 
shall be at liberty either to charter Chinese vessels or to provide 
vessels of the Chinese type for the traffic between Ichang and Chung¬ 
king. Section 2 provides that merchandise conveyed between 
Ichang and Chungking by the above class of vessels shall be 
placed on the same footing as merchandise carried by steamers 
between Shanghai and Ichang. Section 3 provides that all regula¬ 
tions as to the papers and flags to be carried by vessels of the above 
description, as to the cargo certificates with which they shall be 
provided, as to the re-package of goods for the voyage beyond 
Ichang, and as to the general procedure to be observed by those 
engaged in the traffic between Ichang and Chungking with a view 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 85 

to insuring convenience and security, shall be drawn up by the 
Superintendent of Customs at Ichang, the Taotai of the Chuan 
Tung Circuit, who is now stationed at Chungking, and the Com¬ 
missioner of Customs in consultation with the British Consul, and 
shall be liable to any modifications that may hereafter prove to be 
desirable and may be agreed upon by common consent. Section 4 
provides that chartered junks shall pay port dues at Ichang and 
Chungking in accordance with the Yangtsze Regulations; that 
vessels of Chinese type, if and when entitled to carry the British 
flag, shall pay tonnage dues in accordance with treaty regulations; 
that it is obligatory on both chartered junks and also vessels of 
Chinese type, even when the latter may be entitled to carry the 
British flag, to take out the Maritime Custom-House special papers 
and a special flag when intended to be employed by British subjects 
in the transport of goods between Ichang and Chungking, and 
without such papers and flag no vessel of either class shall be allowed 
the privileges and immunities granted under this Additional Article, 
and that provided with special papers and flag, vessels of both 
classes shall be allowed to ply between the two ports, and they and 
their cargoes shall be dealt with in accordance with treaty rules 
and the Yangtsze Regulations; that all other vessels shall be dealt 
with by the Native Customs; that the special papers and flag issued 
by the Maritime Customs must alone be used by the particular 
vessel for which they were originally issued, and are not transferable 
from one vessel to another, and that the use of the British flag by 
vessels the property of Chinese is strictly prohibited; and finally 
that infringement of these regulations will, in the first instance, 
render the offender liable to the penalties in force at the ports 
hitherto opened under treaty, and should the offense be subse¬ 
quently repeated, the vessels special papers and flag will be with¬ 
drawn, and the vessel herself refused permission thenceforward to 
trade between Ichang and Chungking. Section 5 provides that 
when once Chinese steamers carrying cargo run to Chungking, 
British steamers in like manner have access to the said port.® 

§ 6 . American Settlement at Wen-chow. 

Previous to the visit of Mr. Edward C. Lord, the American Consul 
at Ningpo, to Wen-chow, Mr. Davenport, the British consul at 

6 71 British and Foreign State Papers, 753 et seq.\ 82 Ibid. 15 et seq.\ United States 
Foreign Relations, 1877, p. 93 ; 1890, pp. 199-203. 


86 


Treaty Ports in China 

Shanghai, had visited it, and had arranged with the Chinese authori¬ 
ties for a British concession. The terms of the British Concession 
were carefully considered and were regarded as very liberal on the 
part of China. They were put in the form of a joint arrangement, 
which was signed and sealed in duplicate by both parties. When 
the American Consul at Ningpo first visited this port on March 21, 
1877, he found that the best locality for a foreign settlement had 
already been occupied by the English, but with the exception of a 
less desirable situation, he secured all that the British obtained. 
The concessions are equal in size, and they lie side by side, on the 
south or city bank of the river. That of the English is nearer to the 
city, but that of the American, even the farthest limit of it, is little, 
if any, more than a mile away. The ground in both is low, and was 
not particularly inviting, but for the purpose intended it seemed 
the most eligible place near the city. The agreement regarding 
the American conccvssion is much the same as that of the English. 
It was made between Fang, the intendant at Wen-chow, and Edward 
C. Lord, the United States Consul at Ningpo and dependencies, 
on March 27, 1877. The agreement reads: 

Whereas arrangements have been made for opening for trade the port 
of Wen-chow: now, therefore, the said intendant and consul agreed to select 
a piece of ground lying outside of the east gate of the city, in the place called 
Choo Pah Poo, beginning at the east limit of the English concession and 
extending along the river 250 measures, (a measure is ten Chinese feet), and 
extending from the river to the distance of about ninety measures, for an 
American settlement, where American merchants may erect hongs, ware¬ 
houses, and dwellings for their use. The grounds thus included may be tem¬ 
porarily used by their proprietors; but these proprietors may not lease, sell, 
or dispose of them to other parties, either Chinese or foreigners. 

When the consul shall have arrived at Wen-chow, and building-sites shall 
be wanted, he, with the intendant or with the officer whom the intendant 
may detail, shall fix a fair price for them. The proprietors shall not demand 
a price too high nor shall American citizens insist on one too low. Both 
parties shall agree to what is fair. And when the price shall have been paid, 
the proprietors must give possession. 

When the consul shall have arrived at Wen-chow, and the ground shall 
have been measured, it shall be permitted to put up stone landmarks, with 
the inscription cut on them, “The American Settlement.” If any American 
merchant shall need ground for use, on application to his Consul, the Consul 
shall designate it for him, and he shall be allowed to rent and use it. Public 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 87 

roads, and all matters within the settlement, shall be under the control of 
the Consul. 

At present, on account of the rains, ground cannot be carefully measured; 
but the intendant will direct the local officer to make out a list of its proprie¬ 
tors, and to inform them that they may not rent or sell their grounds to others. 

As to the depth or shallowness of the river, accurate measurements have 
not yet been made, so it is not known whether steamers will be able to come 
in and anchor, or whether they will have to anchor at Chwang Yuen Khean, 
at Poo-Chow, or at some other place. It may happen, therefore, that Ameri¬ 
can merchants will wish to put up buildings at the place of anchorage else¬ 
where. In which case, notwithstanding this agreement, American citizens, 
in accordance with the twelfth article of the treaty made at Tientsin, will be 
allowed to rent grounds and erect buildings wherever they may choose . 

Boundaries: On the north, the river; on the south, a line 90 measures 
from the river; on the west, the English settlement; on the east, a line 250 
measures from said settlement.® 

§ 7. The Franco-Chinese War and the Treaty Ports {1884-188'/). 

Early in 1884 hostilities were commenced between the French 
and Chinese troops without a formal declaration of war. The 
authorities of Canton, alarmed at this outbreak, proceeded to place 
obstructions in the entrance to the port in order to prevent possi¬ 
bility of attack by the French. Mr. Lowell, the American Minister 
to Great Britain, had an interview with Lord Granville on this 
matter. Mr. Lowell had been instructed to the effect that the 
treaty ports could not rightfully be closed by either France or 
China, except the latter should do so for necessary protection, and 
that should France agree absolutely and not conditionally to make 
no attack on the treaty ports, a protest against their obstruction 
would be made to China by the American Government. The for¬ 
eign ministers at Peking protested against such obstruction, as they 
were afraid that the other ports might follow the action of Canton 
as a precedent. Sir Harry Parkes, the British minister, on Janu¬ 
ary 15j 1884, protested that the step taken by the Viceroy at Canton 
was illegal in itself, and was useless as a defensive measure, and was 
injurious to British and foreign interests generally. As regarded the 
legality of the measure, the Tsungli Yamen maintained that “as 
trade was not obstructed, but only slightly impeded, the Chinese 
Government could not be accused of blocking the ports. The 
Whampoa Channel was required for torpedo practice, and the 

6 United States Foreign Relations, 1877, pp. 95-98. 


88 


Treaty Ports in China 

Chinese Government was justified in barring it to foreign ships on 
this ground alone. Apart from this consideration, the Viceroy at 
Canton was in supreme command, and the Yamen could not inter¬ 
fere with any arrangements he might see fit to make as a protection 
against invasion. The powers of a military commander-in-chief in 
China were necessarily large, as he might have to answer with his 
life for any error of judgment or tactics.” As regarded the injury 
done to foreign interests, the Tsungli Yamen maintained that the 
Chinese Government was entitled to some consideration, and that 
the subjects of friendly powers in China might justly be expected 
to share in her fortunes and reverses, and it was simply out of con¬ 
sideration for foreign interests that access to Canton had not been 
entirely shut off. Further, in this interview. Minister Chang of 
the Tsungli Yamen said to Sir Harry Parkes that “if China could 
be certain that France would be guided by the laws of war in her 
future action, and an authoritative assurance could be obtained 
from any quarter that France would not attack without due notice, 
Chang-ta-jen would promise, on his own responsibility, that the 
obstruction at Canton should be removed.” The gravity of the 
question seems to have been removed in a great measure by the 
assurance given by the Tsungli Yamen that a passage of over loo 
feet in width would be left in both channels for the convenience of 
steamers and sailing vessels. In this note to the American Minister 
at Peking, Prince Kung of the Tsungli Yamen said: “His Imperial 
Highness has received a telegram from the Viceroy of the two 
Kwang provinces, Chang . . .In this the Viceroy informs 

His Imperial Highness that, regarding the proposed experiments 
in torpedo warfare, which it is proposed to practice in the Canton 
River, so long as there were no actual hostilities there would be left 
a space of over lOO feet for the convenience of vessels entering and 
leaving the port. . . The Viceroy also says that the admirals 

and consuls agree that the proposed arrangements for torpedo prac¬ 
tice do not affect the convenience of commerce.” Later, in a tele¬ 
gram dated January 26, 1884, the British Consul at Canton informed 
Sir Harry Parkes that Chang, the Viceroy of Canton, promised 
further to extend the space to 150 feet. In a letter dated April 18, 
1884, to the American Minister at Peking, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
Secretary of State, observed: “Even, however, under this favorable 
modification, the obstruction to the channel at Canton and Wham- 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 89 

poa can only be tolerated as a temporary measure, to be removed 
as soon as the special occasion therefor shall have passed, and 
under no circumstances to be admitted as a precedent for setting 
obstacles to open navigation at the treaty ports in time of peace, 
under pretext of being intended for ultimate strategic defense in 
the contingency of future war.” 

On August 23, 1884, Admiral Courbet sailed up the Min River 
with his fleet. When he reached Foochow, he bombarded the forts, 
and then he captured the arsenal. However, he surprised the 
natives after having accomplished that part of his hostile measures, 
for as soon as he had captured the arsenal, he then retired to Matsou 
Island. His next appearance in a treaty port was on March i, 1885, 
when the French fleet moved boldly up to the fortifications at the 
mouth of the Ningpo River. The French did not succeed in taking 
the city, but the blockade of Ningpo continued until armistice was 
agreed upon and peace was finally concluded. 

On February 27, 1885, Mr. Edwin Stevens, the American Consul 
at Ningpo, wrote to Mr. Young, the American Minister at Peking, 
for instruction as to whether it would be advisable for him to enter 
or clear American vessels supplying either belligerent with contra¬ 
band of war, and in this letter he also said: “As our nation is at 
peace with both France and China, I would regard it as a questiona¬ 
ble right upon my part to enter and clear a ship flying the American 
flag loaded with contraband articles of war for either of the con¬ 
tending fleets, and more especially so if she had cleared for another 
port than this.” On March 30, the American Minister replied: “I 
agree with you that it would be a questionable right, under existing 
circumstances, for a vessel flying the American flag to carry contra¬ 
band of war for either of the belligerent powers. Such an enter¬ 
prise can only be undertaken at the risk of the owners of the vessel. 
No consuls should in my opinion give sanction to what would be 
regarded by either China or France as a violation of the obligations 
of neutrality.” 

During the month of August, 1884, Chang Chi-tung, the Viceroy 
of the Two Kwang Provinces, had the southern channel of the 
Canton River closed by barriers and obstructions of piles, stones, 
and sunken junks, to prevent hostile ships menacing Canton. The 
southern channel offers the easiest means of access for vessels to 
Canton, the water in it being much deeper than that in the northern 


90 Treaty Ports in China 

channel, when at low tide there is not over six feet a few miles below 
Canton. Since this date the southern channel has remained closed 
to navigation, notwithstanding the united efforts of the consuls, 
who represented to the Viceroy that great detriment to foreign trade 
occasioned by the closing of the only deep-water approach to 
Canton, for, not only were vessels obliged to wait for the tide, but 
in many cases they were absolutely debarred from reaching Canton, 
and had to lighten their cargo, occasioning thereby great additional 
expense. The consuls having entirely failed in their endeavors, the 
question was taken up by the diplomatic corps at Peking. In a 
conference held on April i6, 1886, it was decided that the different 
legations should address dispatches to the Tsungli Yamen on the 
question. On May 21, Mr. Charles Denby, the American Minister 
at Peking, wrote to the Yamen, stating the fact that the obstruc¬ 
tions in the Canton River by the continual silting of the river were 
being continually added to, so that if they were not shortly removed 
they would constitute a permanent barrier, which would close to the 
commerce of the world one of the chief emporiums of trade in China. 
Moreover, he alluded to the fact that during his recent visit to 
Canton, he had learnt that seventy vessels had during the past year 
been kept away from Canton, and that the maintenance of these 
obstructions was a source of general anxiety to the foreign commer¬ 
cial community of Canton. In a few days after the receipt of these 
protests, the Tsungli Yamen sent an identical reply to the various 
legations, stating that it was in receipt of a dispatch from the 
Viceroy of Canton, in which, after describing the nature of the two 
channels and the facilities which they offer, he stated that the foreign 
consuls had requested him either to remove the obstructions in the 
south channel (Sha-lu), or to appoint a deputy at Whampoa who 
could transact the business of ships. These points the Viceroy had 
referred to the Commissioner of Customs at Canton, Mr. Hippisley, 
who replied in substance that during the previous year i ,067 foreign 
vessels had entered or cleared at Canton, and few vessels had experi¬ 
enced any delay—one day at the most—by being obliged to navigate 
the north channel. As to the request made by the German Consul 
that a deputy be appointed at Whampoa, it was deemed inexpedient, 
as the bulk of foreign trade with Canton was carried on in native 
junks, and the burden imposed by the closing of the channel only 
bore on Chinese subjects. The chief argument of the Yamen against 


91 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

reopening the south channel is that the Viceroy having memorialized 
the throne requesting that it might be closed forevermore, the 
Emperor had given his approval, and thus disposed of the question. 

Mr. Charles Denby, the American Minister at Peking, reported 
to Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, on May 31, about this matter. 
In his note dated July 28, Mr. Bayard replied to Mr. Denby, affirm¬ 
ing the position assumed by the State Department in 1884, and said: 
“You are therefore instructed to make use of the best efforts in your 
power to induce the Chinese Government to remove the obstructions 
in the Canton River, which, as you stated, operate to close the port 
of Canton to the merchant vessels of the United States.” 

Further correspondence between the foreign ministers at Peking 
and the Tsungli Yamen resulted in no further progress. In his note 
dated October 27, 1887, to the Secretary of State, the American 
Minister at Peking said: “The appointment of a higher official to 
attend to the duties affecting commerce at Whampoa I regarded as 
desirable, but I do not admit the right of China to put obstructions 
at Whampoa that prevent vessels of deep draught from proceeding 
to Canton in time of peace.” 

This plan for the appointment of a higher officer to look after the 
foreign commerce at Whampoa was communicated to the American 
Minister at Peking by the Tsungli Yamen on October 10, 1887, in 
a note saying: 

Last year your excellency addressed the Yamen, requesting that steps be 
taken to cause the removal of the barrier at Whampoa in the general interest 
of commerce. 

At the time the Yamen replied that the barrier at Sha-lu could never be 
removed, a decree having been issued by the throne, and further discussion 
upon the subject would be of no use. 

Later, his excellency Mr. Von Brandt, Minister for Germany, at an inter¬ 
view, requested that an officer be appointed at Whampoa, and that the rule 
adopted at Taku be carried into effect there, which would be convenient to 
commerce. 

The Yamen would observe that the appointment of an officer to reside 
at Whampoa in order that loss of time by delay to foreign merchants may 
be avoided is certainly an admirable and satisfactory plan. Notes have re¬ 
peatedly been sent to the Governor-General of the Two Kwangs to take 
under consideration the circumstances and devise a scheme that could be 
enforced. 


92 


Treaty Ports in China 

That officer has reported that, under the present regulations in force at 
Whampoa, on the arrival of foreign vessels the customs tide-surveyor issues 
a permit to open hatches and discharge into cargo-boats. After loading, the 
hatches of the cargo-boats are sealed by the tide-surveyor, and on arrival at 
Canton the hatches are opened, cargo examined, and duties paid. 

In the cases of vessels loading at Whampoa, the goods to be shipped are 
first examined at the Custom House at Canton, and after the payment of 
export duty a permit to ship in cargo-boats is issued. After loading, the 
hatches are sealed, and on arrival at Whampoa the tide-surveyor reexamines 
the cargo, and if there be no mistake permission is granted to transship to 
the foreign vessels. This rule is the same as the one in force at Taku governing 
imports and exports. 

But foreign vessels, on arrival at Taku, must first be reported by the 
foreign consul to the customs before permit is issued to discharge cargo into 
boats. At present, on the arrival of foreign vessels at Whampoa, if the foreign 
hong (consignee) gives a bond guarantying the payment of duties, dues, and 
all other charges within the specified time, and that they will not overstep 
or evade the rules, it is only necessary then for the vessel’s papers and tonnage- 
due certificates to be presented (to the customs), and the tide-surveyor at 
Whampoa will at once issue permit to open hatches and discharge cargo into 
boats. Hence cargo can be discharged and be on its way to Canton before 
the consul has reported the vessel to the customs. 

Further, if the arrival of a vessel at Canton is telegraphed by the tide- 
surveyor to the customs at Canton, shippers can at once apply for permits 
to ship export cargo. 

When the vessel is ready to clear, the tide-surveyor at Whampoa, after 
duly examining the export cargo, and the loading of the vessel is completed, 
hands the grand chop or clearance, with the other papers, to the captain, 
and he is therefore not obliged to proceed to Canton for them. 

Thus it will be seen that the regulation in force at Whampoa governing 
the importation and exportation of merchandise is much more convenient 
than the one in force at Taku. 

But hitherto at the Whampoa customs there has been only a tide-surveyor, 
and as the rank of the chief of the tide-waiter class is comparatively low, it 
is now proposed to appoint a fourth-class assistant deputy commissioner of 
customs, to reside at Whampoa and take charge of the customs, then giving 
due weight and importance to the office. 

The Yamen would further observe that as the object and purpose of your 
excellency’s communication are to benefit commerce, the plan now proposed 
by the Viceroy at Canton, together with a request that a deputy commissioner 
of customs be appointed to reside near at hand (Whampoa) to take the man¬ 
agement of shipping, will meet with the wishes of the mercantile class. 


93 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

The plan adopted at Whampoa is much more convenient than the one in 
force at Taku, and the ministers (of the Tsungli Yamen) believe your excel¬ 
lency will surely be pleased to agree to it. 

On October 27, 1887, Mr. Charles Denby, the American Minister 
at Peking, replying to the Tsungli Yamen, observed: “You (the 
ministers of the Tsungli Yamen) also informed me that the barrier 
at Sha-lu, in the Pearl River, can never be removed, and further dis¬ 
cussion upon the subject would be of no use.” He expressed regret 
at that determination of a question in which the commerce of all 
nations was then interested, and added that the obstruction of natu¬ 
ral channels leading to ports had only occurred in time of war, and 
that it was thoroughly settled by international law, that “when war 
ceases, such obstructions, when impeding navigation in channels in 
which large ships are accustomed to pass, must be removed by the 
territorial authorities.” He added: “While I do not admit the right 
of China, under international law, to close the channel in question, 
yet the appointment of a higher officer to take charge of the shipping 
duties at Whampoa seems to be desirable.” The condition, however, 
in the West River was soon changed, for not long after the conclusion 
of the Franco-Chinese War, the river was again cleared of its obstruc¬ 
tions, as their existence was no longer necessary.'^ 

Following the termination of this war, a commercial compact was 
negotiated between M. Cogordan, who had been sent out from 
France for the purpose, and Li Hung-Chang. At first serious diffi¬ 
culties arose between the plenipotentiaries; and on considering the 
first draft of M. Cogordan’s proposals Li replied, “Almost all the 
articles are inadmissible by China. I have received,” he went on to 
say, “from the Tsungli Yamen a letter in which twenty out of the 
twenty-four articles are called in question; and of the remaining four 
there are two which I for my part cannot accept.” In view of this 
sweeping condemnation, certain amendments were admitted by the 
French; and the amended treaty was finally agreed to and signed. 
But it soon became evident that it was unworkable; so it soon 
became necessary to execute another treaty in the following year 
(1887), to set right the objectionable clauses. This Additional Con¬ 
vention of Commerce between France and China was signed at 

7 The Chinese Recorder, vol. xvi, pp. 208-213, 146-150; United States Foreign Rela¬ 
tions, 1884, pp. 64, 66-79, 96; ibid., 1885, pp. 156, 160-162, 168-170; ibid., 1886, p. 
95; ibid., 1888, pp. 224-225, 270. 


94 


Treaty Ports in China 


Peking on June 26, 1887, by Prince King on the part of China, and 
M. Ernest Constans on the part of France. The 2nd Article provides 
for the opening of the treaty ports of Lungchow, Mengtzu, and 
Manhao says: “En execution de I’article premier du traite du 25 
avril 1886, il est convenu entre les Hautes Parties contractantes que 
la ville de Long-Tcheou (Lungchow) au Kouang-si (Kuangsi), et 
celle de Mong-Tseu (Mengtzu) au Yunnan sont ouvertes au com¬ 
merce franco-annamite; il est entendu, en outre, que Manhao, qui 
se trouve sur la route fluviale de Laokai a Mong-Tseu, est ouvert au 
commerce comme Long-Tcheou et Mong-Tseu, et que le gouverne- 
ment frangais aura le droit d’y entretenir un agent relevant du consul 
de cette derniere ville.” But these advantages were given up by the 
French in response to the prayers of the Chinese authorities, who in 
their turn virtually withdrew the right of establishing Chinese 
Consuls at Hanoi and Haiphong. 

However, this treaty was again amended by another Convention 
between China and France in 1895. This Convention was signed, 
on June 20, 1895, at Peking, by M. Auguste Gerard, the French 
Minister, and Prince King and H. E. Siu Yong-Yi of the Tsungli 
Yamen. Article 2 again provided for the opening of Lungchow and 
Mengtze as treaty ports, and it stated: “Il est convenu entre les 
Hautes Parties Contractantes que la ville de Long-tcheou (Lung¬ 
chow), au Kouang-si, (Kuangsi), et celle de Mong-tse, (Mengtze), 
au Yunnan, sont ouvertes au commerce Franco-Annamite. Il est 
entendu, en outre, que le point ouvert au commerce, sur la route 
fluviale de Laokai a Mong-tse, est non plus Manhao, mais Ho-keou, 
et que le Gouvernement Frangais aura le droit d’entretenir a Ho- 
keou un Agent relevant du Consul de Mong-tse, en meme temps que 
le Gouvernement Chinois y entretiendra un agent des Douanes.” 
By Article 3 Sze-mao was opened to trade, and it provided: “Il est 
convenu que la ville Sse-mao, au Yunnan, sera ouverte au commerce 
Franco-Annamite, comme Long-tcheou et Mong-tse, et que le 
Gouvernement Frangais aura le droit, comme dans les autres ports 
ouverts, d’y entretenir un Consul, en meme temps que le Gouverne¬ 
ment Chinois y entretiendra un agent des Douanes. Les autorites 
locales s’emploieront a faciliter I’installation du Consul de France 
dans une residence honorable.” Article 9 provides for the confirma¬ 
tion of existing treaties said: “Les dispositions des anciens Traites, 



Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 95 

Accords, et Conventions entre la France et la Chine, non modifiees 
par le present Traits, restent en pleine vigueur.” ® 

§ 8 . Treaty Ports in Tibet. 

An agreement for the regulation of trade between China and 
Great Britain was signed at Darjeeling, British India, on December 
5, 1893, by A. W. Paul on the part of Great Britain, and Ho Chang- 
Jung and James H. Hart on the part of China. Article i provides 
that a trade mart shall be established at Yatung on the Tibetan 
side of the frontier, and shall be open to all British subjects for 
purposes of trade from May i, 1894, and that the Government of 
India shall be free to send ofihcers to reside at Yatung to watch the 
conditions of British trade at that mart. Article 2 provides that 
British subjects trading at Yatung shall be at liberty to travel 
freely to and fro between the frontier and Yatung, to reside at 
Yatung, and to rent houses and godowns for their own accommoda¬ 
tion, and the storage of their goods; that the Chinese Government 
undertake that suitable buildings for the above purposes shall be 
provided for British subjects, and also that a special and fitting 
residence shall be provided for the officer or officers appointed by 
the Government of India under Article i to reside at Yatung; that 
British subjects shall be at liberty to sell their goods to whomsoever 
they please, to purchase native products and commodities in kind 
or in money, to hire transport of any kind, and in general to conduct 
their business transactions in conformity with local usage, and 
without any vexatious restrictions; that such British subjects shall 
receive efficient protection for their persons and property; and 
finally that at Lang-jo and Ta-chun, between the frontier and 
Yatung, where rest-houses have been built by the Tibetan authori¬ 
ties, British subjects can break their journey in consideration of a 
daily rent. Article 3 provides that import and export trade in the 
following articles: arms, ammunition, military stores, salt, liquors, 
and intoxicating or narcotic drugs, may, at the option of either 
government, be entirely prohibited, or permitted only on such con¬ 
ditions as either government, on their own side, may think fit to 
impose. Article 4 provides that goods, other than goods of the 
description enumerated in Article 3, entering Tibet from British 

8 75 British and Foreign Stale Papers, iiio; 76 ibid., 239; 85 ibid., TSS; 85 ibid., 
744; 85 ibid., 748; 87 ibid., 1170; 87 ibid., 525; H. Cordier, Histoire des relations de 
la Chine avec les puissances occidentales, 1860-1900, vol. ii, pp. 242-552. 


g6 Treaty Ports in China 

India, across Sikkim-Tibet frontier, or vice versa, whatever their 
origin, shall be exempt from duty for a period of five years, com¬ 
mencing from the date of the opening of Yatung to trade, but after 
the expiration of this term, if found desirable, a tariff may be mu¬ 
tually agreed upon and enforced; however, India tea may be 
imported into Tibet at a rate of duty not exceeding that at which 
Chinese tea is imported into England, but trade in India tea shall 
not be engaged in during the five years for which other commodities 
are exempt. Article 5 provides that all goods on arrival at Yatung, 
whether from British India or from Tibet, must be reported at 
the Customs Station there for examination, and the report must 
give full particulars of the description, quantity, and value of the 
goods. Article 6 provides that in the event of trade disputes aris¬ 
ing between British and Chinese or Tibetan subjects in Tibet, they 
shall be inquired into and settled in personal conference by the 
Political Officer for Sikkim and the Chinese Frontier Officer, and 
that the object of personal conference being to ascertain facts and 
do justice, where there is a divergence of views, the law of the coun¬ 
try to which the defendant belongs shall guide. Further, it provides 
that in the event of disagreement between the Political Officer for 
Sikkim and the Chinese Frontier Officer, each official shall report 
the matter to his immediate superior, who, in turn, if a settlement 
is not arrived at between them, shall refer such matter to their 
respective governments for disposal. Article 7 provides that 
despatches from the Government of India to the Chinese Imperial 
Resident in Tibet shall be handed over by the Political Officer for 
Sikkim to the Chinese Frontier Officer, who will forward them by 
special courier; and that despatches from the Chinese Imperial 
Resident in Tibet to the Government of India will be handed over 
by the Chinese Frontier Officer to the Political Officer for Sikkim, 
who will forward them as quickly as possible.® 

Another Convention was concluded between Great Britain and 
China respecting Tibet at Peking on April 27, 1906. This compact 
was signed by Sir Ernest Mason Satow, the British Minister at 
Peking, and H. E. Tong Shao-yi, Vice-President of the Chinese 
Board of Foreign Affairs. In the Preamble it affirmed the Conven¬ 
tion signed at Lhasa on September 7, 1904, between Great Britain 
and Tibet, and in part it read: “And whereas a Convention of ten 

^Parliamentary Papers, Treaty Series, No. 11 (1894). 


97 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

articles was signed at Lhasa on September 7, 1904, on behalf of 
Great Britain and Tibet, and was ratified by the Viceroy and 
Governor-General on behalf of Great Britain on November 11, 1904, 
a declaration on behalf of Great Britain modifying its terms under 
certain conditions being appended thereto; 

“His Britannic Majesty and His Majesty the Emperor of China 
have to conclude a Convention on this subject and have for this 
purpose named plenipotentiaries . . . who having communi¬ 

cated to each other their respective full powers and finding them to 
be in good and true form have agreed upon and concluded the fol¬ 
lowing Convention.” Article i provides for the confirmation of the 
Convention of September 7, 1904, between Great Britain and Tibet. 
Article 2 provides that the Government of Great Britain engages 
not to annex Tibetan territory or to interfere in the administration 
of Tibet. Article 3 provides: “The concessions which are mentioned 
in Article 9 {d) of the Convention concluded on September 7, 1904, 
by Great Britain and Tibet are denied to any state or to the subject 
of any state other than China, but it has been arranged with China 
that at the trade marts specified in Article 2 of the aforesaid Con¬ 
vention Great Britain shall be entitled to lay down telegraph lines 
connecting with India.” Article 4 provides for the continuance of 
the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890, and Regulations of 1893. 

The Convention between Great Britain and Tibet signed at 
Lhasa on September 7, 1904, which was confirmed in the Convention 
between China and Great Britain of April 27, 1906, was very sig¬ 
nificant in relating to the trade marts. By Article 2 it provides that 
the Tibetan Government undertakes to open forthwith trade marts 
to which all British and Tibetan subjects shall have free right of 
access at Gyantse and Gartok, as well as at Yatung, and that the 
regulations applicable to the trade mart at Yatung, under the Anglo- 
Chinese Agreement of 1893, shall, subject to such amendments as 
may hereafter be agreed upon by common consent between the 
British and Tibetan Governments, apply to the marts above men¬ 
tioned, and further that in addition to establishing trade marts at 
the places mentioned, the Tibetan Government undertakes to place 
no restrictions on the trade by existing routes, and to consider the 
question of establishing fresh trade marts under similar conditions 
if development of trade requires it. Article 5 provides that the 
Tibetan Government undertakes to keep the roads to Gyantse and 


98 


Treaty Ports in China 


Gartok from the frontier clear of all obstruction and in a state of 
repair suited to the needs of the trade, and to establish at Yatung, 
Gyantse, and Gartok, and at each of the trade marts that may 
hereafter be established, a Tibetan Agent who shall receive the 
British Agent appointed to watch over British trade at the marts 
in question any letter which the latter may desire to send to the 
Tibetan or to the Chinese authorities, and that the Tibetan Agent 
shall also be responsible for the due delivery of such communica¬ 
tions and for the transmission of replies. Article 8 provides that 
the Tibetan Government agrees to raze all forts and fortifications 
and remove all armaments which might impede the course of free 
communication between the British frontier and the towns of 
Gyantse and Lhasa. Article 9 provides: “The Government of Tibet 
engages that, without the previous consent of the British Govern¬ 
ment—(a) no portion of Tibetan territory shall be ceded, sold, 
leased, mortgaged, or otherwise given for occupation, to any foreign 
power; {b) no such power shall be permitted to intervene in Tibetan 
affairs; {c) no representatives or agents of any foreign power shall 
be admitted to Tibet; {d) no concessions for railways, roads, tele¬ 
graphs, mining or other rights, shall be granted to any foreign power, 
or to the subject of any foreign power. In the event of consent to 
such concessions being granted, similar or equivalent concessions 
shall be granted to the British Government; (e) no Tibetan rev¬ 
enues, whether in kind or cash, shall be pledged or assigned to any 
foreign power, or to the subject of any foreign power.” 

Regulations respecting trade in Tibet, as amended by those of 
December 5, 1893, were concluded between China, Tibet, and Great 
Britain at Calcutta on April 20, 1908, and the ratifications were 
exchanged at Peking on October 14, 1908. Regulation i provides 
that the trade regulations of 1893 shall remain in force in so far as 
they are not inconsistent with these Regulations. Regulation 2 
provides that the following places shall form, and be included within, 
“the boundaries of the Gyantse mart: (a) The line begins at the 
Chumig Dangsang (Chlu-Mig-Dangs-Sangs) northeast of the 
Gyantse Fort, and thence it runs in a curved line, passing behind 
the Pekor-Code (Dpal-Hkhor-Choos-Sde), down to Chag-Dong- 
Gang (Phyag-Gdong-Sgang); thence passing straight over the Nyan 
Chu, it reaches the Zamsa (Zam-Srag). {h) From the Zamsa the 

Parliamentary Papers, Treaty Series, No. 9 (1906). 




99 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

line continues to run, in a southeastern direction, run to Lachi-To 
(Gla-Dkyu-Stod), embracing all the farms on its way, viz., The 
Lahong; the Hogtso (Hog-Mtsho); the Tong-Chung-Shi (Grong- 
Chhung-Gshis); and the Rabgang (Rab-Sgang), etc. (c) From 
Lachi-To the line runs to the Yu tog (Gyu-Thog), and thence runs 
straight, passing through the whole area of Gamkar-Shi (Ragal- 
Mkhar-Gshis), to Chumig-Dangsang.” Then it states further that 
British subjects may also lease lands for the building of houses and 
godowns at the marts, the locality for such building sites to be 
marked out specially at each mart by the Chinese and Tibetan 
authorities in consultation with the British Trade Agent; that the 
British Trade Agents and British subjects shall not build houses 
and godowns except in such localities, and this arrangement shall 
not be held to prejudice in any way the administration of the Chinese 
and Tibetan local authorities over such localities, or the right of 
British subjects to rent houses and godowns outside such localities 
for their own accommodation and the storage of their goods. It 
also provides that British subjects desiring to lease building sites 
shall apply through the British Trade Agent to the Municipal Office 
at the mart for a permit to lease, and that the amount of rent, or 
the period or conditions of the lease, shall then be settled in a friendly 
way by the lessee and the owner themselves, and that in the event 
of a disagreement between the owner and lessee as to the amount of 
rent or the period or conditions of the lease, the case will be settled 
by the Chinese and Tibetan authorities, in consultation with the 
British Trade Agent, and that after the lease is settled, the sites 
shall be verified by the Chinese and Tibetan Officers of the Munic¬ 
ipal Office conjointly with the British Trade Agent, and that no 
building is to be commenced by the lessee on a site before the 
Municipal Office has issued him a permit to build, but it is agreed 
that there shall be no vexatious delays in the issue of such permit. 
Regulation 3 provides that the administration of the trade marts 
shall remain with the Tibetan officers, under the Chinese officers’ 
supervision and directions; that the trade agents at the marts and 
frontier officers shall be of ‘suitable rank’, and shall hold per¬ 
sonal intercourse and correspondence with one another on terms 
of mutual respect and friendly treatment; that questions which 
cannot be decided by agreement between the trade agents and the 
local authorities shall be referred for settlement to the Government 


100 


Treaty Ports in China 


of India and the Tibetan high authorities at Lhasa, and the purport 
of a reference by the Government of India will be communicated to 
the Chinevse Imperial Resident at Lhasa; and that questions which 
cannot be decided by agreement between the Government of India 
and the Tibetan high authorities at Lhasa shall, in accordance with 
the terms of Article i of the Peking Convention of 1906, be referred 
for settlement to the Governments of Great Britain and China. 
Regulation 4 provides that in the event of disputes arising at the 
marts between “British subjects and persons of Chinese and Tibetan 
nationalities,” they shall be enquired into and settled in personal 
conference between the British Trade Agent at the nearest mart 
and the Chinese and Tibetan Authorities of the Judicial Court at 
the mart, the object of personal conference being to ascertain facts 
and to do justice; that where there is a divergence of view the law 
of the country to which the defendant belongs shall guide; that in 
any such mixed cases, the officer or officers of the defendant’s na¬ 
tionality shall preside at the trial, the officer or officers of the plain¬ 
tiff’s country merely attending to watch the course of the trial; 
that all questions in regard to rights, whether of property or person, 
arising between British subjects, shall be subject to the jurisdiction 
of the British authorities; that British subjects, who may commit 
any crime at the marts or on the routes to the marts, shall be handed 
over to the British Trade Agent at the mart nearest to the scene of 
offense, to be tried and punished according to the laws of India, but 
such British subjects shall not be subjected by the local authorities 
to any ill-usage in excess of necessary restraint; that Chinese and 
Tibetan subjects, who may be guilty of any criminal act towards 
British subjects at the marts or on the routes thereto, shall be 
arrested and punished by the Chinese and Tibetan authorities 
according to law; that justice shall be equitably and impartially 
administered on both sides; that should it happen that Chinese and 
Tibetan subjects bring a criminal complaint against a British sub¬ 
ject before the British Trade Agent, the Chinese or Tibetan authori¬ 
ties shall have the right to send a representative or representatives, 
to watch the course of trial in the British Trade Agent’s Court; and 
that similarly, in cases in which a British subject has reason to 
complain of a Chinese or Tibetan subject in the Judicial Court at 
the mart, the British Trade Agent shall have the right to send a 
representative to the Judicial Court to watch the course of trial. 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 loi 

Regulation 5 provides that the Tibetan authorities, in obedience to 
the instructions of the Peking Government, having a strong desire 
to reform the judicial system of Tibet, and to bring it into accord 
with that of western nations. Great Britain agrees to relinquish her 
rights of extraterritoriality in Tibet, whenever such rights are relin¬ 
quished in China, and when she is satisfied that the state of the 
Tibetan laws and the arrangements for their administration and 
other considerations warrant her in so doing. Regulation 6 provides 
that after the withdrawal of the British troops, all the rest-houses, 
eleven in number, built by Great Britain upon the routes leading 
from the Indian frontier to Gyantse, shall be taken over at original 
costs by China and rented to the Government of India at a fair rate, 
and that one-half of each rest-house will be reserved for the use of 
the British officials employed on the inspection and maintenance of 
the telegraph lines from the marts to the Indian frontier and for 
the storage of their materials, but the rest-houses shall otherwise be 
available for occupation by British, Chinese and Tibetan officers of 
respectability who may proceed to and from the marts; that Great 
Britain is prepared to consider the transfer to China of the telegraph 
lines from the Indian frontier to Gyantse when the telegraph lines 
from China reach that mart and in the meantime Chinese and 
Tibetan messages will be duly received and transmitted by the line 
constructed by the Government of India; and that in the meantime 
China shall be responsible for the due protection of the telegraph 
lines from the marts to the Indian frontier and it is agreed that all 
persons damaging the lines or interfering in any way with them or 
with the officials engaged in the inspection or maintenance thereof 
shall at once be severely punished by the local authorities. Regu¬ 
lation 7 provides that in lawsuits involving cases of debt on account 
of loans, commercial failure, and bankruptcy, the authorities con¬ 
cerned shall grant a hearing and take steps necessary to enforce 
payment, but if the debtor plead poverty and be without means, 
the authorities concerned shall not be held responsible for the said 
debts, nor shall any public or official property be distrained upon in 
order to satisfy these debts. Regulation 8 provides that the British 
Trade Agents at the various trade marts now or hereafter to be 
established in Tibet may make arrangements for the carriage and 
transmission of their posts to and from the frontier of India; that 
the couriers employed in conveying these posts shall receive all pos- 


102 


Treaty Ports in China 

sible assistance from the local authorities whose districts they 
traverse and shall be accorded the same protection as the persons 
employed in the despatches of the Tibetan authorities; that when 
efficient arrangements have been made by China in Tibet for a 
Postal Service, the question of the abolition of the Trade Agent’s 
couriers will be taken into consideration by Great Britain and 
China; that no restrictions whatever shall be placed on the employ¬ 
ment of British officers and traders of Chinese and Tibetan subjects 
in any lawful capacity; that the persons so employed shall not be 
exposed to any kind of molestation or suffer any loss of civil rights 
to which they may be entitled as Tibetan subjects, but they shall 
not be exempted from all lawful taxation; and that if they be 
guilty of any criminal act, they shall be dealt with by the local 
authorities according to law without any attempt on the part of 
their employer to screen or conceal them. Regulation 9 provides 
that British officers and subjects, as well as goods, proceeding to 
the trade marts, must adhere to the trade routes from the frontier 
of India; and that they shall not, without permission, proceed 
beyond the marts, or to Gartok from Yatung and Gyantse, or from 
Gartok to Yatung and Gyantse, by any route through the interior 
of Tibet, but natives of the Indian frontier, who have already by 
usage traded and resided in Tibet, elsewhere than at the marts shall 
be at liberty to continue their trade, in accordance with the existing 
practice, but when so trading or residing they shall remain, as here¬ 
tofore, amenable to the local jurisdiction. Regulation 10 provides 
that in cases where officials or traders, en route to and from India 
or Tibet are robbed of treasure or merchandise, public or private, 
they shall forthwith report to the police officers, who shall take 
immediate measures to arrest the robbers, and hand them to the 
local authorities, and that the local authorities shall bring them to 
instant trial, and shall also recover and restore the stolen property, 
but if the robbers flee to places out of the jurisdiction and influence 
of Tibet, and cannot be arrested, the police and local authorities 
shall not be held responsible for such losses. Regulation 11 provides 
that for public safety tanks or stores of kerosene oil or any other 
combustible or dangerous articles in bulk must be placed far away 
from inhabited places at the marts, and that British or Indian mer¬ 
chants, wishing to build such tanks or stores, may not do so until, 
as provided in Regulation 2, they have made application for a 


103 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

suitable site. Regulation 12 provides that British subjects shall be 
at liberty to deal in kind or in money, to sell their goods to whom¬ 
soever they please, to purchase native commodities from whom¬ 
soever they please, to hire transport of any kind, and to conduct 
in general their business transactions in conformity with local usage 
and without any vexatious restrictions or oppressive exactions 
whatever; that it being the duty of the police and local authorities 
to afford efficient protection at all times to the persons and property 
of the British subjects at the marts, and along the routes to the marts 
China engages to arrange effective police measures at the marts 
and along the routes to the marts; that on due fulfilment of these 
arrangements. Great Britain undertakes to withdraw the Trade 
Agents’ guards at the marts and to station no troops in Tibet so as 
to remove all cause for suspicion and disturbance among the inhabi¬ 
tants; that the Chinese authorities will not prevent the British 
Trade Agents holding personal intercourse and correspondence with 
the Tibetan officers and people; and that Tibetan subjects trading, 
travelling or residing in India shall receive equal advantages to those 
accorded by this Regulation to British subjects in Tibet. Regu¬ 
lation 13 provides that the present Regulations shall be in force for 
a period of ten years reckoned from the date of signature by the 
representatives; but if no demand for revision be made on either 
side within six months after the end of the first ten years, then the 
Regulations shall remain in force for another ten years, from the 
end of the first ten years; and so it shall be at the end of each suc¬ 
cessive ten years.^^ 

§ g. The Status of the Treaty Ports during the China-Japan War 
and the Opening of New Treaty Ports by the Treaty of Shimonoseki 
and the other Compacts between China and Japan. 

During the China-Japan War proclamations and Imperial Decree 
were issued by the Chinese Government and other measures were 
adopted by it for the protection of foreigners living in treaty ports 
and other places in the Empire. Before the declaration of war the 
Japanese Government succeeded in securing the consent of the 
United States Government to allow its Minister at Peking to act as 
“custodian Japanese Legation and afford friendly offices for protec¬ 
tion Japanese subjects in China,” either directly or through consuls 

Parliamentary Papers, 1909, vol. cv, pp. 81-86. 


104 


Treaty Ports in China 


acting under his instructions. To this the Chinese Government 
gave its consent, and on August 29, 1894, Mr. Gresham, Secretary 
of State, instructed Mr. Denby, Jr., American Charge d’Affaires ad 
interim at Peking, as follows: 

The function with which you are thus charged, with the consent of the 
Government to which you are accredited, is one that calls for the exercise of 
personal judgment and discretion. It is an unofficial, not an official, function. 
A minister of the United States cannot act officially as the diplomatic repre¬ 
sentative of another power, such an official relation being prohibited by the 
Constitution of the United States. But, apart from this fact, the circum¬ 
stances under which the function in question is to be discharged imply per¬ 
sonal and unofficial action. The state of war into which China and Japan 
have entered is inconsistent with the continuance of diplomatic intercourse 
between them. Your position is that of the representative of a neutral power, 
whose attitude toward the parties to the conflict is that of impartial amity. 
Your interposition in behalf of the subjects of one of them is not to be con¬ 
sidered as an act of partisanship, but as a friendly office performed in accord¬ 
ance with the wishes of both parties. This principle you are constantly to 
bear in mind, in order that, while doing what you can consistently with inter¬ 
national law for the protection of the interests of Japanese subjects in China, 
you may not compromise our position as a neutral. 

Mr. Gresham further instructed Mr. Denby, Jr., on September 
18, 1894, that, as the treaties between China and Japan were abro¬ 
gated by the state of war existing between the two countries, the 
consuls of the one country no longer exercised the powers and the 
qualified jurisdictional intervention with which they were invested 
by the treaties in the territory of the other in time of peace; and 
then he added: 

The Japanese Government, therefore, in the first article of the Imperial 
Ordinance (promulgated at Tokio on August 4), declares that Chinese sub¬ 
jects in Japan shall be wholly subject to the jurisdiction of Japanese courts. 
The abrogation of the treaties is necessarily attended with the same effect 
upon the status of Japanese subjects in China, as upon that of Chinese sub¬ 
jects in Japan; and this Government, as has heretofore been stated, cannot 
invest Japanese subjects in China, or Chinese subjects in Japan, with an 
extraterritoriality which they do not possess as the subjects of their own 
sovereign. The good offices, however, which this Government has granted 
are to be exercised on all proper occasions and to the full extent allowed by 
international law. 


105 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

The Chinese Minister at Washington on the early part of Augusti 
1894, having complained that the United States Consul at Shangha, 
was protecting Japanese spies, the American Legation at Peking was 
instructed to report immediately and fully. Mr. Denby, Jr., still 
acting as Charge d’Affaires ad interim, replied that according to the 
Tsungli Yamen’s statement, the prefect of Shanghai saw in the 
French concession two Japanese spies wearing Chinese clothing, and 
“securing arrest by the French Consul, plans were found upon them;” 
that the French Consul delivered them to the United States Consul- 
General, who refused to give them up without definite instructions 
of the United States Legation; that on the demand of the Yamen 
for their delivery, he replied that he could not act until the United 
States Consul-General had reported. Then he suspended action 
and requested instructions from the Department of State for reasons 
which he stated as follows: 

One [reason] was that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities 
over subjects of a power at war with China, resident in the foreign settle¬ 
ments at Shanghai, was sufficiently in doubt to justify the foreign authorities 
in demanding proof of guilt and stipulating for a fair trial before giving up 
such subjects when accused. The custom in time of peace as to foreigners 
residing in Shanghai, who were subjects of a foreign power having no treaty 
with China and hence not enjoying the privileges of extraterritoriality, was 
to be tried when arrested for crime by the ‘mixed court’, namely a Chinese 
magistrate sitting with a foreign assessor. The foreigners at Shanghai wished 
to establish the principle that this procedure should be followed in time of 
war against subjects of a belligerent power. They were strongly averse to 
establishing the precedent that China should have exclusive jurisdiction over 
such persons . . . The second reason for suspending action was stated 

to be that of humanity. 

The Department of State replied on August 29, 1894, that the 
nature of the protection to be rendered to Japanese in China seemed 
to be misapprehended; that lending good offices did not invest 
Japanese with extraterritoriality nor should legation or consulates 
be made asylum for Japanese who violated local laws or commit 
belligerent acts; that protection to be exercised unofficially and con¬ 
sistently with neutrality; and that the Consul-General should not 
have received two Japanese and was not authorized to hold them. 
Instructions were given to surrender them unconditionally. Mr. 
Charles Denby, Jr., on September i, 1894 instructed the American 


io6 Treaty Ports in China 

Consul-General at Shanghai that he had no power to receive and 
was not authorized to hold the alleged spies, and directed him to 
deliver them over to the Taotai. On September 3, Mr. Jernigan, 
the American Consul-General at Shanghai, wrote to Mr. Denby, Jr., 
that he had delivered them over, as instructed. On November 24, 
Mr. Jernigan cabled to Mr. Edwin F. Uhl of the State Department 
that “Two Japanese, four weeks’ trial. Informed not tortured.” 
After having given them a long trial for so many weeks, they were 
decapitated at Nanking on October 8, 1894. On November 26, Mr. 
Jernigan wrote to Mr. Edwin F. Uhl that “although the Chinese 
authorities have to date refused my request for information of pro¬ 
ceedings against the two alleged Japanese spies, I believe that the 
trial was fully of the duration indicated, and was in conformity to 
the rules obtaining in Chinese courts. A letter from an intelligent 
foreigner residing at Nanking, where the two Japanese were exe¬ 
cuted, discredits the reports of their torture. Other letters from the 
same gentleman have proved so accurate that I am disposed to 
accept the reported torture as without substantial proof.” 

On the early part of August, Mr. Fowler, the American Consul at 
Ningpo, informed Mr. Denby, Jr., that the Taotai persisted in 
closing that port to all ships. Mr. Denby, Jr., was of the opinion 
that, “as Japan, however, has given no pledge not to attack Ningpo, 
I have telegraphed in reply that this legation ‘cannot object to 
China’s necessary defensive measures’.” 

Notwithstanding the assurance of the Japanese Government that 
it would regard Shanghai as outside the sphere of its warlike opera¬ 
tions, the Chinese Government had partially closed the Huangpu 
River at Wusung, but a sufficient channel was left unobstructed for 
all mercantile purposes. This action was justified on the part of the 
Chinese Government upon the ground that it was the entrance 
leading up to its Kiang-nan Arsenal, one of its most important 
sources of military supplies. 

The Tsungli Yamen on October 6, 1894 announced that the port 
of Foochow was closed for purposes of defense. The Wuhu Men 
or Five Tigers Entrance was left open, and a designated place was 
specified as an anchorage for foreign and Chinese steamers outside 
the mouth of the river and here they were allowed to discharge and 

12 United States Foreign Relations, 1894, PP* 95-134; Moore, J. B., Digest of Inter¬ 
national Law, vol. iv, pp. 601-611. 


107 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

load cargo, which must be conveyed to and from the city of Foochow 
by lighters registered at the customs, which lighters were to follow 
an indicated route and ply only in the daytime. This note was 
addressed to the foreign ministers at Peking, and it read: 

Upon the 3d instant (October) the prince and ministers received a tele¬ 
gram from the Viceroy of the M in-Che Provinces, stating that he has now- 
taken measures for the defense of the port of Foochow by establishing a 
blockade. But the Wuhu Men (Five Tiger Entrance) will be kept open, 
and Chinese and foreign steamers will be permitted to anchor below Sharp 
Peak Point, behind Ho-keang Island, and there discharge and load cargo, 
which must be conveyed by lighters registering at the customs. These 
boats must ply in and out by the route south of the Nan Kuei Hill (or 
Island). They are not permitted to run during the night, in order to avoid 
their being fired on by mistake. 

Mr. Denby, Jr., was of opinion that “burdensome to commerce as 
these regulations will doubtless prove, no objection can be made to 
them in view of the fact that China’s naval force is utterly demoral¬ 
ized and entirely inadequate to the protection of her coast. Foo¬ 
chow is an important naval deport, and must be guarded at all 
hazards.” 

On April 17, 1895 a treaty of peace between China and Japan was 
signed at Shimonoseki. By Article 6 the following Chinese cities, 
towns, and ports, in addition to those already open, were opened, 
to the trade, residence, industries, and manufactures of Japanese 
subjects, under the same conditions, and with the same privileges 
and facilities as exist at the present open cities, towns, and ports of 
China: (i) Shashih, in the Province of Hupeh; (2) Chungking, in 
the Province of Szechuen; (3) Soochow, in the Province of Kiangsu; 
(4) Hangchow, in the Province of Chekiang. The treaty also 
provided that the Japanese Government should have the right to 
station Consuls at any of the above-named places; that steam nav¬ 
igation for vessels under the Japanese flag for the conveyance of 
passengers and cargo should be extended to the following places: 
(i) On the Upper Yangtsze River, from Ichang to Chungking; (2) 
On the Woosung River and the Canal, from Shanghai to Soochow 
and Hangchow. It further provided that Japanese subjects should 
be free to engage in all kinds of manufacturing industries in all the 

13 United States Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix I, pp. 54 . 55 . 58 , 7 i* 


io8 


Treaty Ports in China 

open cities, towns and ports of China, and should be at liberty to 
import into China all kinds of machinery, paying only the stipulated 
import duties thereon; that all articles manufactured by Japanese 
subjects in China should, in respect of inland transit and internal 
taxes, duties, charges, and exactions of all kinds, and also in respect 
of warehousing and storage facilities in the interior of China, stand 
upon the same footing and enjoy the same privileges and exemptions 
as merchandise imported by Japanese subjects into China. 

On July 21, 1896, a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between 
China and Japan was signed at Peking. By this treaty (Article 3) 
Japan secured the right to appoint consular officers to reside at the 
ports, cities, and towns of China which were or might hereafter be 
opened to foreign residence and trade. It gave (Article 4) Japanese 
subjects the right to reside and trade in the open ports. 

On October 19, 1896 a Protocol was signed between China and 
Jhpan respecting Japanese settlements to be possessed exclusively by 
Japan should be established at the open ports of Shanghai, Tientsin, 
Amoy and Hankow (Article 3). It also provides that (Article i) the 
management of roads and local police authority should be vested 
solely in the Japanese Consuls. 

On October 8, 1903, a Supplementary Treaty of Commerce and 
Navigation between China and Japan was signed at Shanghai. By 
this treaty (Article 10) a place of international residence and trade 
in Peking was to be opened by China itself, and that the regulations 
relating thereto should be made in due time after consultation. By 
annexes 6 and 7 to this Article it was agreed between “the High 
Contracting Parties” that a place in Peking outside of the Inner City 
should be selected and set apart as a place where merchants of all 
nationalities might reside and carry on trade; that within the limits 
of this place merchants of all nationalities should be at liberty to 
lease land, build houses and warehouses, and establish places of 
business, but as to the leasing of houses and land belonging to 
Chinese private individuals there must be willingness on the part 
of the owners, and the terms thereof must be equitably arranged 
without any force or compulsion; that all roads and bridges in this 
place were to be under the jurisdiction and control of China; tjiat 
foreigners residing in this place were to observe the municipal and 
police regulations on the same footing as Chinese residents, and 
they were not to be entitled to establish a municipality and police 


109 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

of their own within its limits, except with the consent of the Chinese 
authorities; that when such place of international residence and 
trade should have been opened and its limits properly defined, the 
foreigners who had been residing scattered both within and without 
the city walls, should all be required to remove their residence 
thereto, and they should not be allowed to remain in separate places 
and thereby cause inconvenience in the necessary supervision by the 
Chinese authorities; that the value of the land and buildings held 
by such foreigners should be agreed upon equitably, and due com¬ 
pensation therefor should be paid; that the period for such removal 
should be determined in due time, and those who did not remove 
before the expiry of this period should not be entitled to compen¬ 
sation. It also provides that (Article 10) the Chinese Government 
agreed to open to foreign trade, within six months from the exchange 
of the ratifications of this treaty, Changsha, in the Province of 
Hunan, on the same footing as the ports already opened to foreign 
trade, and that foreigners residing in this open port were to observe 
the municipal and police regulations on the same footing as Chinese 
residents, and they were not entitled to establish a municipality and 
police of their own within the limits of this treaty port, except with 
the consent of the Chinese authorities. It finally provided that the 
Chinese Government agreed that, upon the exchange of the ratifi¬ 
cations of this treaty, Mukden and Tatungkow, both in the Province 
of Shengking, would be opened by China itself as places of inter¬ 
national residence and trade, and that the selection of suitable 
localities to be set apart for international use and occupation, and 
the regulations for these places set apart for foreign residence and 
trade, should be agreed upon by the Governments of China and 
Japan after consultation together. Then Japan agreed to assist 
China in her judicial reform, so as to bring her judicial system into 
accord with that of Japan and western nations; and she also prom¬ 
ised that she would relinquish her extraterritorial rights when satis¬ 
fied that the state of the Chinese laws, the arrangements for their 
administration, and other considerations warranted it in so doing.^'^ 

§ 10. Rights of Aliens to reside and conduct business at Soochow 
and Hangchow, outside of the concession limits. 

On July 17, 1897, Mr. T. R. Jernigan, American Consul-General 

United States Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 98-99; 1895, Part I, pp. 199-203; 

87 British and Foreign State Papers, 799, 804, 1195, 1197; 88 ihid., 473; 96 ibid., 578. 


no 


Treaty Ports in China 

at Shanghai, wrote to Mr. Charles Denby, the American Minister 
at Peking, that the Chinese authorities at the port of Soochow had 
issued a proclamation forbidding Chinese to sell land to foreigners 
outside the concession, and that the Chinese authorities at the port 
of Hangchow opposed foreigners residing in the native city of Hang¬ 
chow for purposes of trade. On July 26 Mr. Denby replied: 

You cannot well take up the discussion of the right of an American to buy 
land in the city of Soochow, but outside of the concession, until an actual case 
shall arise, but you are instructed as a matter of precaution to protest against 
the proclamation mentioned, and to claim in general that the city of Soochow 
and the settlements are all in the area of the port and are all opened to foreign 
trade, and that land can be bought by foreigners in the city under the treaties. 

In the meantime Mr. Denby informed the Tsungli Yamen that 
he would not consent to the expulsion of Americans from the native 
city of Hangchow. On July 28, 1897, the Yamen wrote to Mr. 
Denby informing him that on the 19th of July the Yamen received 
a communication from the Governor of Chekiang, embodying a 
report from the Taotais of the Board of Foreign Affairs reading as 
follows: 

In regard to the American merchant opening a life insurance office at a 
place called Yu Sheng Kuan Chiang, the office of foreign affairs addressed a 
communication to the United States Consul requesting that instructions be 
issued to have the said office removed from the city, but no reply has been 
received to said communication. 

It appears that at Hangchow, in addition to the Japanese settlement, a 
large tract of land has been set apart at the Hung Chien Bridge as a trading 
place for foreigners. The land has been filled in, roads made, and the banks 
of the river repaired. Police have been employed, and the outlay of money 
has been heavy. This has been done for the purpose of treating foreigners 
kindly and giving them due protection in carrying on their business. It 
cannot be said that they have not been treated in a generous and liberal 
manner. 

The said American has established, in violation of treaty, an office in the 
city of Hangchow. 

Of the foreign trading ports in China, Shanghai dates the very earliest. 
It is situated on the Yang King Pan, and has been opened for over fifty years. 
It has never been heard of foreign merchants establishing hongs in the city 
of Shanghai. There is ample proof that foreign hongs have not been estab¬ 
lished (within the city) at the treaty ports of Chinkiang, Tientsin, and 
Foochow. 


Ill 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

The Yamen argued that the American Minister should issue in¬ 
structions to have the life insurance office removed from the city of 
Hangchow on the ground that the foreign settlements were not a 
dwelling place to both Chinese and foreign merchants, as they were 
separated in order that peace and quiet should prevail among them, 
and as a foreign settlement had been marked off and limits defined 
at a place called Hung Chien Bridge at Hangchow, so it was right 
that the said life insurance company should open its office within 
the limits of the said settlement. 

On August 30, Mr. Denby, writing to the State Department for 
instructions, stated that he was informed that the Japanese Govern¬ 
ment did not regard the Shimonoseki Treaty as conferring on 
Japanese the right of residence at Hangchow and Soochow beyond 
the limits of the Japanese concessions; and that England and other 
powers would acquiesce in the contention of China that foreigners 
should establish their business premises within the concessions desig¬ 
nated for them at those cities. He had not, he said, felt authorized 
to consent that Americans should be denied the right of residence 
in the cities open to trade; but it was evidently inadvisable for the 
legation to insist on privileges under Japanese treaties which the 
Japanese themselves waived and which were not asserted in behalf 
of the citizens of the other powers. Unless, therefore, the diplo¬ 
matic body unites in a demand for unrestricted residence at the 
above cities, or unless the right of residence should be exercised by 
citizens of other powers, he should, he said, refrain from further 
insistence thereon on behalf of citizens of the United States. 

The Department of State approved Mr. Denby’s position, and in 
so doing enclosed a copy of an opinion of the Solicitor of the Depart¬ 
ment, which reads as follows: 

Under the most-favored-nation clause of the Treaty of 1858 citizens of 
the United States are entitled to frequent and reside at any port open to 
commerce by treaty with any power. The solution of the question, therefore, 
depends on the construction—on the extent and limitation—of the concession 
made in the two treaties between Japan and China. By the treaty of peace 
the concession is limited to the same conditions and with the same privileges 
and facilities as exist at the present open cities, towns, and ports of China. 
Mr. Denby says that “the right of residence is allowed in many cities of 
China.” But whether such residence arises by bare license, or as a mere 
matter of grace, or by strict treaty right, is not shown, and in the absence of 


II2 


Treaty Ports in China 

such specific information it does not seem prudent to predicate the construc¬ 
tion of the treaty by reference to such fact. 

The question seems to be complicated by further provisions in Article 6 
of the treaty of peace, not mentioned in the package of correspondence of 
Mr. Denby. It provides: All treaties between China and Japan having 
come to an end, in consequence of war, China engages, immediately upon the 
exchange of the ratifications of this act, to appoint plenipotentiaries to con¬ 
clude, with the Japanese plenipotentiaries, a treaty of commerce and navi¬ 
gation and a convention to regulate frontier intercourse and trade. The 
treaties, conventions, and regulations now existing between China and Euro¬ 
pean powers shall serve as a basis for the said treaty and convention between 
Japan and China. From the date of the exchange of the ratifications of this 
act until the said treaty and convention are brought into actual operation 
the Japanese Government, its officials, commerce, navigation, frontier inter¬ 
course and trade, industries, ships, and subjects shall in every respect be 
accorded by China most-favored-nation treatment . 

It would seem that Article 6 of the treaty of peace, by which the conces¬ 
sions are granted, in effect provides for the making of further rules and 
regulations in that behalf; and therefore Article 6 is to be constructed in 
connection with Article 4 of the subsequent treaty of commerce. The first 
clause of this article grants to Japanese subjects the right to reside and carry 
on trade in the said city. But the last clause of that article restricts the right 
to and “within the localities at those places which have already or may here¬ 
after be set apart for the use and occupation of foreigners.” Considering 
together the two treaties between Japan and China, it would seem that the 
Japanese subjects were clearly intended to be so restricted, since any other 
construction would make the last clause meaningless. But it may be said 
that while this restriction might operate against the subjects of Japan, it 
would not operate against the citizens of the United States, inasmuch as the 
Treaty of 1858 contains no such restriction, and therefore, whenever such 
ports are opened by treaty between China and any other nation, the con¬ 
cession takes place under the Treaty of 1858 in an unrestricted form. 

But is that a fair and reasonable construction? 

Clause I of Article 6 of the treaty of peace grants to Japanese subjects 
the treatment of the most-favored-nation. And this article stipulates ex¬ 
pressly for the future conclusion between the contracting parties of a treaty 
of commerce and navigation, the basis of which should be the treaties, con¬ 
ventions, and regulations now subsisting between China and European 
powers, and stipulates ad interim for the most-favored-nation treatment of 
Japanese subjects. Did Japan, therefore, in the final treaty—in the treaty 
of commerce and navigation—surrender the most-favored-nation treatment 
which she obtained by the treaty of peace? If she did not (and it is presumed 
that she did not), then other nations, under the most-favored-nation clause, 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 113 

take the concessions subject to the same restrictions as Japan. If, on the 
other hand, they take without restrictions, then Japan also enjoys without 
restrictions; which would render meaningless the last clause of Article 4 of 
the treaty of commerce If, however, Japan is bound by the restriction made 
in said article, it would seem that the delimitation of the concession to Japan 
measures and delimits it to other nations. 

The contention that the said last clause is merely cumulative would seem 
inadmissible, since it violates a leading canon of construction, that the in¬ 
strument be so construed as that all parts of it shall have a meaning; which 
would be the case if the last clause simply qualifies and restricts the generality 
of the preceding grant. 

The motive for the provision exists in reasons of domestic policy, thus mak¬ 
ing the Chinese contention an apparently reasonable one.^® 

§ Ji. Treaty Ports on the West River and the Opening of Momein 
or Shunning and Ssumao to Foreign Trade. 

An Agreement between China and Great Britain modifying the 
Convention of March i, 1894, relative to Burmah and China, was 
signed at Peking on February 4, 1897. By a special article it was 
provided that Wuchow-fu, in Kwangsi; and Shamshui and Kong 
Kun Market, in Kwangtung; should be opened as Treaty Ports and 
Consular Stations, with freedom of navigation for steamers between 
Shamshui and Wuchow and Hongkong and Canton, by a route 
from each of these latter places to be selected and notified by the 
Imperial Maritime Customs. It was further provided that four 
places should be established as ports of call for goods and passen¬ 
gers, under the same Regulations as the ports of call on the Yang- 
tsze River, namely, Kongmoon, Komchuk, Shiuhing, and Takhing. 

An agreement for the opening of Nanning, in Kwangsi, is em¬ 
bodied in the following communication dated February 4, 1897, 
from the Tsungli Yamen to Sir C. MacDonald, the British diplo¬ 
matic representative: “The negotiations regarding the Agreement 
modifying the Burmah-China Frontier and Trade Convention of 
the 1st of March, 1894, and the Special Article opening the West 
River to trade having now been concluded, it has been agreed that 
if hereafter trade develops, and it is mutually found that the inter¬ 
ests of trade justify it, China will at once open Nanning-fu as a 
Treaty Port and Consular Station.” By Article 13 of the Agreement 
of February 4, 1897, it is provided that the Government of Great 

15 United States Foreign Relations, 1897, pp. 69-80. 


114 Treaty Ports in China 

Britain may station a Consul at Momein or Shunning-fu (Momein 
or what is usually called Tengyueh was selected) and also at Ssumao; 
that British subjects and persons under British protection may 
establish themselves, and trade at these two places, under the same 
conditions as at the treaty ports in China; and that the consuls 
appointed as above shall be on the same footing as regards corres¬ 
pondence and intercourse with Chinese officials as the British Con¬ 
suls at the treaty ports. 

§ 12. The Problem of Extension in the Shanghai Settlements. 

In the early part of 1898 the French Municipal Council at Shang¬ 
hai notified the native authorities that it was their intention to 
efface the existence of what was known as the Ningpo Joss House 
near the Rue du Consulat, but the notification was disregarded. 
Early on Saturday, July 16, 1898, a landing party from the French 
cruiser VEclaireur marched up to the Joss House and took possession, 
on behalf of the French municipality, of the vacant piece of ground 
opposite the building. The French municipality, supported by 
Count de Bezaure, the Consul-General, acted on the principle that 
if a foreigner requires land in the concession belonging to Chinese, 
he has the right to buy it, if he is prepared to pay the owners the 
assessed value. The land in question was wanted for a school, a 
hospital, and possibly an abattoir. Commencing at six o’clock in 
the morning a large gang of men in the employ of the French munic¬ 
ipality entered upon the work of demolition. It was then that the 
natives realized that earnestness was the keystone of the French¬ 
men’s action, and large and angry crowds of Chinese gathered 
vituperating, and questioning the foreigners’ right to interfere with 
their ancient sages. During the day nothing more serious occurred 
than the hurling of stones; but, the next evening, about 8 o’clock, 
the mob made a raid on the police station at Namtao and succeeded 
in pulling down portions of the wall. Things reached such a pass, the 
rioters throwing stones and arming themselves with bamboos, that 
the French sailors fired on the mob, four or five being killed and 
several wounded. Subsequently the mob was again fired on with 
fatal results it being estimated that altogether some fifteen lost 
their lives in'addition to many wounded. This condition of affairs 
lasted only a few hours and in the afternoon order was again restored. 

^^Parliamentary Paper, Treaty Series, No. 7 (1897). 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 115 

It must be remembered that the French contention was dealt 
with in the settlement between the Chinese Government and the 
French Minister at Peking, in 1878, of the claims arising out of the 
riot over the Ningpo Joss House in 1874. By this agreement an 
indemnity of Tls. 7,000 was paid by the French to the families of 
the Chinese who were killed on that occasion, and it was solemnly 
agreed that the Guild should remain in undisturbed possession of 
their land forever. The Agreement also expressly declared: 

It is hereby further agreed that the cemetery and house property of the 
Ningpo Joss House shall be forever under the management of the members 
of the Ningpo community, free from all questions of their being removed. 
Within the premises of the cemetery no road or drain shall ever be proposed 
to be made nor shall house building or planting of plants of any kind be ever 
allowed so as to protect the buried coffins from being injured. The French 
Consul-General shall instruct “through the Municipal Council” the police to 
give protection to the Joss House so that benevolent matters may be pro¬ 
moted and friendly relations be thereby cultivated. 

In the face of such agreement, undoubtedly the French had vio¬ 
lated their solemn promise, and it is difficult to find any other solu¬ 
tion of the whole matter than for the French authorities to withdraw 
from that aggressive action. In an editorial of December 19, 1898, 
the North-China Herald of Shanghai said: 

We have consistently sympathized with M. de Bezaure’s (French Consul- 
General at Shanghai) attempt to make the property known as the Ningpo 
Joss House of the greatest value to the French Settlement, for the benefit of 
natives as well as foreigners, by making roads and building institutions for 
the Chinese on the disused cemetery; but when the Taotai brought forward 
the formal and final agreement made twenty years ago by the French Minister 
at Peking, there was nothing more to be said; and we cannot understand why 
M. de Bezaure did not then gracefully withdraw from what had become— 
by no fault of his—an untenable position . . .It seems, therefore, a 

mistake to base a claim for the extension of the French Settlement on the 
Ningpo Joss House affair, and to make that claim a preposterous one in 
extent, so that it does not enlist the sympathies of other Powers, who also 
entirely object to any expansion of the exclusive jurisdiction which the 
French enforce in the Settlement they have now, and have been allowed to 
enforce although it has no foundation in right. M. de Bezaure cannot get 
any adequate force to coerce the Viceroy (Liu of Nanking). We do not know 
the reason, but we do know that no one knows better than the French Admiral 
now on this station that the French are entirely in the wrong in the Ningpo 


ii6 Treaty Ports in China 

Joss House matter. It is very certain that the lay element, the commercial 
element, in the French colony has no desire for the particular form of exten¬ 
sion that M. de Bezaure has been demanding; that we get the key when we 
notice that while there are no French commercial interests at Pootung or in 
the suburb between the native city and the river, the religious societies have 
very large interests in these districts. It is an old complaint in China that 
there is a great deal too much that is political about the Roman Catholic 
propaganda in China; and the dislike in the interior to the Roman Catholic 
Christians is not entirely due to dislike of the religious side of the work done 
by the Roman Catholic organization . 

Prior to the demand of the French Consul-General for the exten¬ 
sion of the French concession at Shanghai, the French authorities 
had some conflict with the British consular and diplomatic repre¬ 
sentatives in China. In that year, in the case of the three lots sit¬ 
uated in the French Settlement held by Thomas Hanbury, a British 
subject, under title deeds issued by the Shanghai Taotai in i86i and 
registered in the British Consulate, the French Consul, on inspecting 
the deeds, pronounced them to be irregular on the ground that they 
were not registered in his Consulate in accordance with the principle 
of locus regit actum in international law. Mr. Hanbury, through 
his agents, refused to register his land in the French Consulate, and 
this refusal was upheld by the British Minister at Peking. Conse¬ 
quently, when the French authorities asked the Chinese Government 
later in the same year for an extension of the French Settlement in 
Shanghai, the British Government, evidently having this case still 
fresh in memory, openly opposed the proposition and bent all its 
energies to defeat it. The British Government, however, ultimately 
withdrew its opposition to the French demand on the condition that 
the French Minister had agreed to forward, and had forwarded, to 
the French Consul-General at Shanghai the following instructions: 

1. All deeds to British property are to be registered in the British Con¬ 
sulate. 

2. All municipal regulations are to be submitted for the approval of the 
British Minister at Peking before they can be enforced on British subjects. 

3. All titles to British property which are declared in order by the British 
Consul-General are to be considered so by the French authorities. 

This question remained unsettled until 1900, when, on January 
27, the Taotai of Shanghai issued the following proclamation in 
reference to the extension of the French concession: 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 117 

• 

On the 14th day of the 3rd moon of the 29th year of Tao Kuang (6th April, 
1849) were determined, after a mutual understanding, by the Taotai Lin, 
the regulations relative to the Concession situated to the south of the Yang- 
kingpang. Since then this site consecrated to foreign trade has become day 
by day more flourishing and populous. 

On the 25th day of the 9th moon of the nth year of Hsien Feng (29th 
October, 1861) the Taotai Wu, in accord with M. Aidan, then Consul-General 
of France at Shanghai, extended the French Concession up to the creek of the 
Little East Gate. 

Later, on the 13th day of the 2nd moon of the 24th year of Kuang Hsu 
(14th March, 1898) the Taotai Tsai, then in charge, received from M. de 
Bezaure, Consul-General of France at Shanghai, an official demand for an 
extension of the French Concession. The discussion that ensued came to no 
result. 

Now, I have myself, after my entry on office as Taotai, been advised by 
H. E. Liu, Grand Commissioner of the Southern Ports and Viceroy of the 
Two Kiang, that he had delegated to come to Shanghai to collaborate under 
my direction in the regulation of the extension of the Concession, Mr. Fer¬ 
guson, Assistant for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Yu, officer of his staff. Consid¬ 
ering that the continual development of trade at Shanghai had rendered the 
French Concession insufficient, I invited the two delegates, as was proper, 
to discuss and examine the extension. With the assistance of Messrs. Fer¬ 
guson and Yu, I have come to an agreement with M. de Bezaure, Consul- 
General of France, and the determination of the four boundaries of the ex¬ 
tension is a settled matter . 

By the present proclamation we make it known to all, that from now— 
with the exception of the temples built by Imperial Order, the sites belonging 
to the Chinese Government, the foreign cemetery, which remains as before 
International, and the road giving access to it, which will not be under the 
jurisdiction of the Municipal Council of the French Concession—all other 
questions will be entirely subject to the established regulations . 

The limits of the extension of the French Concession are: On the east: 
the City Moat. On the west: the place called Koukiatche and the creek of 
Kuantimiao. On the south: the bridge of Tingkongkiao, the creek of Yen- 
kongmiao, and the creek called Tatiepang. On the north: the creek of 
Peitehangpang or the boundary of the International Settlement. 

A petition was sent to Peking in 1899 praying for a greatly 
enlarged boundary for the International Settlement at Shanghai, 
and this had the support of the consular body and also of the Chinese 
local officials and gentry, and after some delay the matter was 
finally referred to the Viceroy at Nanking for settlement. The 


ii8 Treaty Ports in China ^ 

extension which was asked for had been granted, and the new terri¬ 
tory was actively surveyed by the municipal council for the con¬ 
struction of roads and other public works. The exact boundary of 
the International Settlement now is: On the north: the Soochow 
Creek from the Hsiao Sha Ferry to a point about seventy yards west 
of entrance thereinto of the Defence Creek, thence in a northerly 
direction to the Shanghai-Paoshan boundary, thence following this 
boundary to the point where it meets the mouth of the Kukapang. 
On the east: the Whampoo River from the mouth of the Kukapang 
to the mouth of Yangkingpang. On the south: the Yangkingpang 
from its mouth to the entrance thereinto of the Defence Creek, 
thence in a westerly direction following the line of the northern 
branch of the Great Western Road, to the Temple of Agriculture in 
the rear of the Bubbling Well village. On the west: from the Tem¬ 
ple of Agriculture in a northerly direction to the Hsiao Sha Ferry on 
the Soochow Creek. 

Mr. E. H. Conger, the American Minister at Peking, wrote to Mr. 
John Hay, Secretary of State, on July 5, 1899, that it was also 
agreed in the concession for the extension that foreigners might 
own property, and that the municipality might exercise authority 
over roads, police, sanitation, lighting in the Paoshan district, ex¬ 
tending as far as and including Wosung.^^ 

§ 13. Japanese Concession at Amoy. 

The American Minister at Peking was informed by the Tsungli 
Yamen in March, 1899, that negotiations with Japan for a settlement 
at Amoy were begun some two years before. It seems that the 
United States Consul at Amoy had been instructed to inquire of 
the local authorities as to whether the Chinese Government would 
make a similar concession for securing an American settlement, 
although it was the intention of the United States Government 
only to remonstrate against discrimination and interference with 
American interests. 

On December 9, 1899, Mr. Conger advised the Department of 
State, that he had received a final report from Mr. Johnson, the 
American Consul at Amoy, upon the Japanese concession, and that 

Parliamentary Papers, China, No. i (1899), pp. 224-267, 330-341; ibid., China, 
No. I (1900), pp. 191-194; North-China Herald, November 7, 1898, July 25, 1898, 
July 18, 1898, December 19, 1898, February 21, 1900; United States Foreign Relations, 
1899, pp. 143-150, 279-283. 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 119 

no effort was being made to obtain an international foreign settle¬ 
ment, nor to secure to American interests privileges equivalent to 
those granted to Japan. In closing his note, Mr. Conger said: 
“The few Americans there do not need such a concession, nor could 
they afford the expense of controlling and keeping it up.” 

The Agreement between China and Japan provided that the area 
of the Japanese Concession should be 40,000 ken (one ken equals 
six feet); and that the houses owned by individuals within the con¬ 
cession were to be purchased by the Japanese, when wanted, at a 
price to be agreed upon with the Chinese commercial committee. 

In his final report upon this concession to Mr. Conger, Mr. A. 
Burlingame Johnson, the American Consul at Amoy, said: “The 
ground included in the concession is not only very limited in area, 
but is far from being conspicuous on account of its desirability. It 
has been kept within the limits suggested to me by the Japanese 
Consul at the time I remonstrated against the granting of the large 
area first surveyed by the Japanese and Chinese officials, which 
facts have been fully reported by me.” 

§ 14. Regulations to he Applied in any Future Extension of the 
British or French Concession at Hankow. 

On December 22, 1899, the British Foreign Office, writing to 
M. Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador at London, respecting 
the Regulations to be applied in any future extension of the French 
Concession at Hankow, stated that in the event of any extension of 
the French Concession at Hankow being subsequently obtained, the 
following conditions as regards British property therein would be 
strictly observed: 

1. All deeds applying to British property to be registered in the British 
Consulate. 

2. All Municipal Regulations to be submitted to Her Majesty’s Minister 
at Peking before they can be enforced on British subjects. 

3. All titles to British property which are declared in order by the British 
Consul-General are to be so considered by the French authorities. 

Then the note stated that: 

With respect to the British claims to land situated in the present French 
Concession, which are believed to be four in number, and all of which are 
represented by Mr. Greaves, of Hankow, as it is understood that the validity 

18 United States Foreign Relations, 1899, pp. 150-154. 


120 


Treaty Ports in China 

of the titles is questioned by the French authorities, Her Majesty’s Govern¬ 
ment consent to the question being referred to the British and French Consuls- 
General at Shanghai, and failing an agreement being arrived at by them, to 
an arbitrator, by whom the matter would be decided in accordance with 
precedent and local usage. 

On January 15, 1900, M. Gambon, the French Ambassador, 
acknowledging the receipt of the note, stated: 

Mon Gouvernement, k qui je n’avais pas manque de I’adresser, me charge 
de vous faire savoir qu’il donne son adhesion aux quatre points resumes dans 
ce document. II demeure, du reste, bien entendu entre les deux Gouverne- 
ments que, dans le cas ou la Concession Britannique recevrait un agrandisse- 
ment par la suite, les conditions ciapres econcees seraient appliquees en ce 
qui concerne les terrains appartenant a des Frangais et se trouvant situes 
dans la zone qui serait englobee dans la Concession Anglaise: 

1. Tons actes s’appliquant a des proprietes Frangaises seraient enregistres 
au Consulat de France. 

2. Tons les Reglements Municipaux seraient soumis au Ministre de France 
a Pekin, avant de pouvoir etre appliques a des citoyens Frangais. 

3. Tous les titres des proprietes appartenant k des Frangais reconnus 
valuables par le Consul de France seraient acceptes comme tels par les autori¬ 
tes Britanniques.^® 

§ 15. The Situation of the Treaty Ports during the Boxer Rebellion. 

During the Boxer Rebellion efforts were made from the very 
beginning to restrict the field of operations to Peking and Tientsin, 
and the Consular Body in the Treaty Ports of Central and South 
China was instrumental in bringing about this result. In Shanghai 
the condition was not very favorable. The situation at Peking and 
the fighting in and about Tientsin had absolutely stopped all trade. 
This, together with the fact of the stoppage of the steamboat lines 
and the shutting down of the cotton mills, had caused many to 
become apprehensive that the eight foreign gunboats at Shanghai 
might attack the town, or that the unemployed Chinese might riot 
for the sake of loot; and in consequence, thousands of Chinese were 
leaving the city daily. In order to allay this feeling the Consular 
Body issued the following proclamation: 

Owing to the troubles in the north, many rumors have been circulated in 
Shanghai which have unsettled the minds of the people. In their ignorance 
of the true state of affairs they have frightened themselves and each other, 
Hertslet’s China Treaties, vol. i, pp. 589-591. 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 121 

and in fleeing homeward from Shanghai have in many cases fallen a prey to 
robbers. 

We, the Consular Body at Shanghai, have consulted with the Chinese 
authorities regarding the protection of life and property in this neighborhood 
and have agreed to act in cooperation in putting down any disturbances that 
may occur. The Municipal Council, holds the volunteer corps in readiness 
for the protection of the foreign Settlement, and our warships have taken up 
their positions in the river for the same purpose, and for that alone. 

With such precautions, both on shore and afloat, and with the cordial co¬ 
operation of the Chinese authorities, there is no reason why the troubles in 
the North need spread into these parts. There is no cause for alarm, and we 
hereby give notice to all that the presence of the foreign men-of-war in the 
river is only a measure of precaution for the protection of the Settlement, 
and that there is no foundation of truth in the idle rumors with which many 
persons are now exciting themselves. 

It was necessary above all to obtain the assistance of the Viceroys, 
Governors and Taotais if peace in the treaty ports and other cities 
of Central and South China was to be preserved. As a result of 
further negotiation, Li Hung-chang, the Acting Viceroy of the Two 
Kwangs; Liu Kun-yi, Viceroy of Kiangsu Kiangsi,and Anhui; Chang 
Chihtung, Viceroy of Hunan and Hupeh; Yuan Shih-kai, Governor of 
Shantung; Wang Chih-chun, Governor of Anhui; and Yu Lien-san, 
Governor of Hunan, and the Taotais of the various treaty ports, 
united in a single plan for the protection of foreigners’ life and 
property. The Governor of Chekiang was for sometime uncertain 
what to do, as he had already published Prince Tuan’s edict to the 
people calling for active participation against the foreign powers; 
but on July 5 he notified the American Consul that he would protect 
foreigners, no matter what might happen at the North, and that he 
would join the Yangtze Viceroys in their plans. Thus he came 
around in due time. Liu Kun-yi, Viceroy of Kiangsi, Kiangsu and 
Anhui, was at this time seventy-seven years old, having for thirty- 
five years served in this high ofhcial rank. He was then regarded as 
the leader of the Hunanese, the most warlike of the provinces in 
Central China. Having been summoned to Peking for an Imperial 
audience, he had the rare courage to tell the Empress Dowager in 
outspoken terms that her reactionary policy meant the ruin of 
China. In spite of this and of his active antagonism to Prince Tuan, 
Kang Yi and the other leaders of the reactionaries, who were trying 
their utmost to secure his removal from office, he was too firmly 


122 


Treaty Ports in China 


established in the friendship of the Empress Dowager, so he was 
permitted to resume his duties at Nanking. He was instrumental 
in arranging the league of the Viceroys in South and Central China, 
which was now responding so favorably to the views of the Foreign 
Ministers and Consuls. More than that he associated himself at 
the capital with the liberals, in opposition to the reactionaries. That 
the unfortunate Rebellion did not spread throughout the Empire 
was due to these half-dozen Viceroys and Governors, who saw 
beyond the events of the moment, and were not blinded by hate or 
prejudice in their views as to what was best for China and the 
Chinese. 

On July 3, the Viceroys of Kiangsu, Kiangsi, Anhui, Hunan and 
Hupeh made the following definite pledge: “We the Viceroys of the 
Liang Kiang and Liang Hu Provinces, undertake to hold ourselves re¬ 
sponsible for the security of foreign life and property within our respec¬ 
tive jurisdictions, as well as in the province of Chekiang, so long as 
the Treaty Powers do not land troops in either the Yang-tse Valley 
or the Province of Chekiang.” 

§ j( 5 . The Proposed Extension of Foreign Settlements in Tientsin 
and the 'Grab Game' Policy. 

In the early part of June, 1900, Tientsin was the military head¬ 
quarters of the allied forces, and various relief expeditions were 
despatched from that port. Consequently, the Boxers began in the 
middle of the month to start fires in many directions and made an 
attempt to enter the foreign settlement, but they were repulsed 
with heavy loss of life. 

There was a military college in a fortified position within 300 
yards of the settlement and 600 yards from the American Consulate. 
This position was occupied by 200 military students, well armed and 
drilled, and who had at their command eight large Krupp guns. 
The opinion of the military expert of the time was that had they 
opened fire, the foreign concession would have been riddled and 
perhaps captured. The allied forces, however, obtained an advan¬ 
tage by attacking this strategic point without giving these students 
further opportunity for preparations for defense, and after some 
fighting the position and guns were captured. 

2® United States Foreign Relations. 1900, pp. 248-277; Parliamentary Paper, China, 
No. 3 (1900), 128, 130, 13s, 137, 140, 153, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 172, 177, 179, 
194-196, 198, 199, 204-205, 222, 226, 240, 244, 249, 251, 261, 262, 270-271. 


123 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

Two days previously the Russians had landed about 1,700 troops, 
with one 6-gun battery, so that at the time the siege began the 
Allied forces numbered approximately 2,500 troops in defensing 
a position of some ten miles in length. It had been previously 
arranged in the event of an attack, all women and children should 
assemble at Gordon City Hall, a very large and substantial building 
near the center of the settlement. 

On the 22nd, some 200 United States Marines, accompanied by 
300 Russians, attempted to enter the city, from the railroad, but 
when within two miles of their destination were ambushed and 
compelled to retreat, as the Boxers were surrounding them on three 
sides. However, they were reinforced with 1,500 new troops, and 
on the 24th they succeeded in driving the Boxers into the walled 
city, thus leaving communication with Taku unobstructed. 

On the 13th of July, the allied forces began to attack the walled 
city, and after nightfall the Japanese drew near the south gate and 
finally succeeded in blowing it open, when they entered with a rush, 
and the Boxers were forced to retreat. On the next day the city was 
divided up into districts, the United States troops occupying the 
position immediately in front of their line the previous day, in which 
was located a large armory containing immense stores of arms and 
munitions of war. They also had control of the salt commissioners’ 
yamen, where they found a million dollars’ worth, or more, of silver 
bullion. The Japanese and English each found as much more in 
various locations. So ended the twenty-nine days of siege, during 
which time there was not an hour that people did not hear the shriek 
of shells or the whistle of bullets.^^ 

With the capture of the city, the allied forces remained in pos¬ 
session even after the fall of Peking. The symptom of ulterior 
motives of the European Governments became visible about the 
middle of November, 1900. On December 31, 1900, Mr. E. H. 
Conger, the American Minister at Peking, “confirmed” his previous 
telegraphic reports to the Department of State that the powers 
were seeking permanent extensions to the concessions which they 
already occupied. Conger regarded this action as a dangerous 
precedent, and added his opinion that “all extensions of foreign 
settlements should be international,” and that “all settlements at 

21 Parliamentary Paper, China, No. 3. (1900), 206, 219, 227; United States Foreign 
Relations, 1900, pp. 268-273. 


124 


Treaty Ports in China 

the treaty ports should be international.” As Russia had started 
the fracas, Conger directed Mr. Ragsdale, the United States Consul 
at Tientsin, to enter “a protest,” while he himself prepared to remon¬ 
strate with the Russian Minister at Peking. These proposed exten¬ 
sions of the Russians and Belgians, and those later demanded by 
the German, French, Austrian, and Japanese, were denounced by 
the American Minister as a “grab game” which “was neither fair 
nor consistent,” as it “is in violation of their publicly declared inten¬ 
tions” that “the several armies came here, as they have all declared, 
for a general purpose, and not to gain any special advantage for 
individual governments.” It may be remarked in passing that 
throughout this critical period of Chinese history, Mr. Conger was 
an able exponent of the American policy, as followed from the begin¬ 
ning and elaborated by Secretary John Hay, of friendship for and 
justice to China, and of altruistic protection of American and 
Chinese interests, especially at this time when China was practi¬ 
cally friendless and knew not what to do or where to turn. How¬ 
ever, in this matter of extension, the American Minister admitted 
that, “since there are so many regularly established concessions at 
Tientsin, an international one is hardly to be expected,” but he 
contended that “all action in relation to securing new or extending 
old concessions should be deferred until order is restored, the Chinese 
Government reestablished, and the rights and interests of all can be 
considered.” 

As to the policy which the United States should follow, Mr. 
Conger proposed: 

It would be advantageous to us in many ways to have an American Con¬ 
cession at Tientsin, but we have learned by experience that it takes both 
money and citizens to own and operate a concession. We have not enough 
there of either. The Department is familiar with our former efforts to sus¬ 
tain the desirable concession which had to be abandoned in 1896. If, how¬ 
ever, the United States Government can in any way take upon itself part 
of the burden, as the other governments do, it may be advisable for us to 
demand consideration of our rights to a concession while the others are taking 
and dividing up all available territory . 

The Russian Circular announcing the occupation of the left bank 
of the Peiho River, opposite the foreign concessions already estab¬ 
lished at Tientsin, appeared on November 6, 1900. This Russian 
State Paper announced: 


125 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

Since the 17th of June last the Imperial Chinese troops have joined the 
rioters (Boxers) who attacked the Foreign Concessions and the railway 
station occupied by the Russian troops, and that on the 23d of June the 
Russian reenforcements, which came to raise the blockade, swept the left 
bank of the Peiho from below the railway station up to the petroleum godown 
of Messrs. Meyers & Co., and have established themselves there by right of 
conquest in having taken possession by force of arms and at the price of 
Russian blood spilled, in order to prevent the Chinese from returning to 
resume the firing. His excellency (Lieutenant-General Linevitch, Com- 
mander-in-Chief of the Russian expeditionary force in Chili) considers all this 
tract of land included in that from above the railway station to the petroleum 
godown as having become the property of the Russian troops on the 23rd of 
June by act of war. The Russian flags have been planted, and notice posted 
upon boards in many places within this territory, which has been occupied 
and protected by the Russian military authorities. Therefore his excellency 
cannot and will not recognize, except by his special authorization, any con¬ 
cession whatever of this territory of which he has taken entire and complete 
possession. It is understood that the rights of those landowners (other than 
Chinese) whose titles have been duly registered in foreign names before 
June 17 will be safeguarded. 

Belgium likewise grabbed all in sight that was possible for so small 
a nation; and in a notice addressed to the consuls of the other nations 
at Tientsin dated November 7, 1900, the Belgian Consul said: 

I have the honor to inform you that in accordance with instructions from 
His Belgian Majesty’s Legation at Peking, I have this day occupied the 
territory situated opposite the foot of the German Concession and extending 
along the river to a point about 50 meters below the petroleum godown of 
Messrs. H. Meyers & Co., thence to another point about a kilometer lower 
down. The ground is bounded on the sides by two straight lines, is limited 
on the inside by the railway, beginning from the railway crossing, about 
kilometers from the mud wall up to another point distant about 
kilometers, equally distant from the point of intersection of the road and the 
above railroad. The Belgian flag has been planted upon the territory and 
its limits marked. I have, therefore, the honor to inform you that every sale, 
cession, or transfer of property within these limits cannot and will not be 
recognized as legal. It is understood that titles in the names of Europeans 
(other than Chinese) which have been duly registered prior to taking over 
of this territory will be safeguarded. 

M. G. du Chaylard, the French Consul-General at Tientsin, on 
November 20, published a French Circular announcing the occupa- 


126 


Treaty Ports in China 

tion of certain territory at Tientsin in addition to its former conces¬ 
sion. This typical French document announced: 

The Consul-General of France, President of the Municipal Council, wishing 
to warn foreign residents against the consequences they would expose them¬ 
selves to by buying ground in the quarter presently annexed to the French 
Concession, has the honor to inform them that the Municipal Council will 
not recognize as valid any contract subsequent to June 17, the date on which 
hostilities began. All land-holders, bearers of regular titles issued before the 
17th of June, are requested to exhibit them at the French Consulate, where 
they shall be duly verified and registered. The extension of the concession 
includes all the grounds as follows: First, between the Rue de Paris, the 
Taku Road, the Quai de France, extended as far as the old building of the 
London Mission in the Chinese city. Second, the zone situated west of the 
French Concession and limited by the Taku Road, the extra British Conces¬ 
sion, the mud wall, and a line running from the said wall and abutting on the 
river in front of the London Mission building. 

On November 28, 1900, the Austrian Minister at Peking wrote to 
Mr. Conger that he was informed that several powers had recently 
occupied tracts of land at Tientsin upon which to establish settle¬ 
ments or to increase those which they already possessed, conse¬ 
quently the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had directed him 
to communicate the following declaration to the plenipotentiaries of 
the foreign powers at Peking: 

In order to be able to effectually protect our interests in commerce and 
navigation, the Imperial and Royal Government considers it necessary, after 
the restoration of order in China, to establish a consulate at Tientsin, and it 
will require for this purpose a settlement like the others already have. 

For this purpose the Imperial and Royal Government has decided to exact 
from the Chinese Government, in the course of the next negotiations, a 
suitable tract. 

In view of the recent occupations of Tientsin, the Imperial and Royal 
Government desires now to advise in advance the foreign representatives at 
Peking of this intention, in order to preserve an equity of rights with the other 
powers and to secure itself against any prejudice in the question of settle¬ 
ments or concessions of land. 

The Italian Minister at Peking followed suit, and on December i, 
1900, he notified the foreign representatives at Peking that he was 
instructed by the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs to publish the 
following notification: 


127 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

In order to effectually protect our commercial and shipping interests, the 
Royal Government may consider it necessary to establish a consulate at 
Tientsin, and consequently a settlement, such as the other powers already 
have. 

In order to do so, the Royal Government may consider it necessary to 
demand of the Chinese Government, in the course of future negotiations, a 
suitable location. 

With reference to the recent occupations at Tientsin, I beg to inform the 
foreign representatives of this contingency, in order to reserve to the Royal 
Government equal rights, without prejudice, with the other powers, in the 
matter of settlements of concessions. 

The next country which announced its 'grab game’ policy was 
Japan. On December 28, 1900, a notice was published by the 
Japanese Consul at Tientsin to the effect that, in order to prevent 
the possible confounding of the right of ownership of land and prem¬ 
ises within the limit of the Japanese settlement, he would not recog¬ 
nize the validity of any transfer of right of ownership of land or 
premises within the following limits, made after June 17, “the day 
of opening of hostilities,” or those transfers which, although made 
before the above date, had not been duly verified by the Chinese 
authorities at the time of such transfer. The limits of the Japanese 
settlement were thus defined: 

North: From a point 600 feet westward of the Nanmen (the south gate) 
to Chiakao, along the ditch outside the Tientsin city wall. 

Northeast: From Chiakao to the northeastern boundary of the French 
Settlement along the Peiho. 

East: The boundary line between the French and Japanese Concessions. 

South: The mud wall. 

West: The straight line drawn from the point 600 feet westward of the 
Nanmen (the south gate) to the point 450 feet westward of the Haikwanmen 
(mud-wall gate near the Haikwansu). 

On April 18, 1901, Herr Alfred Zimmermann, the German Consul- 
General at Tientsin, published the following notification: 

By order of the Imperial German Legation at Peking, I have the honor to 
inform you that, with the consent of the Chinese authorities, the German 
Concession at Tientsin has been enlarged on the west to the Taku Road, on 
the south to the boundary within the limits which are marked in green on 
the plan herewith. 

I beg to add that it is well understood that foreigners who hold prior regular 
titles are safeguarded. 


128 


Treaty Ports in China 


The position of the United States was a very unpleasant one, and 
“as guardian of Chinese territorial integrity, soon had its hands 
full, and, rather to its regret, was forced to take a seemingly incon¬ 
sistent stand,” which requires careful explanation in order to be 
understood in the right light. Mr. Conger, the American Minister 
at Peking, on February 26, 1901, telegraphed to Mr. Hay that, 
notwithstanding his protests, all territory at Tientsin available for 
concessions, except a small tract formerly constituting the United 
States concession, had been seized by the land-hungry powers, and 
that he had instructed the United States Consul, Mr. Ragsdale, to 
serve notice that that tract must be left for part of an international 
settlement or a United States Concession, which “will be demanded 
when order is restored, and that the United States will not recognize 
seizure or adverse occupation.” Taking the circumstances into con¬ 
sideration, this course was then considered as the wisest, and was 
approved by Mr. Hay in a telegram to Mr. Conger dated February 
27, 1901. 

The American Concession at Tientsin, which was referred to by 
Mr. Conger in his cable of February 26, 1901, was one of three 
tracts of land laid out at Tientsin in 1869, one for England, another 
for France, and the third for the United States. For some years 
the United States authorities exercised in a way jurisdiction over 
the grant, but on October 12, 1880, the concession was relegated to 
its “former status (meaning back to China) with the understanding 
that if at some future time it shall become desirable to establish 
suitable municipal regulations therein it shall be competent for the 
consular authorities to do so.” The Taotai of Tientsin on October 
14, 1880, acknowledged the receipt of the despatch sent him by the 
American Consul, and stated that if any American Consul in the 
future should “desire to have the settlement revert to the present 
system of administration he must first arrange with the Customs 
Taotai as to the mode of administration, and if there be nothing 
objectionable in the same there should be nothing to prevent the 
settlement from reverting to the original Government.” Later in 
1896 a movement was on foot to cede this territory to the Germans, 
against which action a protest was filed and correspondence in rela¬ 
tion thereto with the State Department followed, and finally on 
April 2, 1896, the American Minister at Peking advised that all 
jurisdiction over the property be abandoned, and on June 25 in- 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 129 

structed the American Consul at Tientsin to inform the Taotai to 
that effect. 

On February 24, 1901, Minister Conger made the first definite 
announcement of the American policy in his letter to Mr. Ragsdale, 
American Consul at Tientsin: 

As you are already fully aware, it is against the declared policy of our 
Government to in any way make the present military movement in China a 
pretext for seizing or obtaining territory; and it is for this reason that I have 
instructed you to make the protests which you have made against the seizures 
by other powers. 

But in order that we may prevent every possible place being occupied by 
others, so that if the Government desires to apply for a concession after 
order is restored, we may be able to reoccupy at least the small tract that was 
formerly the United States Concession, or, preferably, have it included in an 
International Settlement, and still be consistent with the position we have 
already taken, you may send the inclosed, in the form of a note from yourself, 
to each of your colleagues. 

If there is likely to be any doubt about the limits of the tract, you might, 
if necessary, set out the boundaries in addition to saying it is “known as the 
United States Concession.” 

On receipt of this instruction, Mr. Ragsdale served the following 
notice on the foreign consuls at Tientsin relative to the preservation 
of the tract of land known as the United States Concession in 
Tientsin: 

For the purpose of preserving the tract of land known as the United States 
Concession in Tientsin, to be with other tracts organized into an International 
Settlement if possible, but, if not, then at the proper time whenever it may 
legally be done, to be reoccupied as a United States Concession, the under¬ 
signed, by direction of the United States Legation at Peking hereby serves 
this formal notice of such intention on the part of his Government, and 
requests that it be in every way respected. No adverse seizure or occupancy 
of any part of this tract can be recognized or allowed. 

Although this tract of land was temporarily under the jurisdic¬ 
tion of the United States authorities in the hope that it could be 
converted into an international settlement, yet the United States 
seemed disinclined to appropriate it. All the powers with the 
exception of Great Britain were unwilling to accept this arrange¬ 
ment, so the only way left was to come to terms with Great Britain. 
Immediate action was imperative, as this ‘no man’s land’ was 


130 


Treaty Ports in China 

rapidly filling up with bad characters on account of the inadequate 
and inefficient control of the police. 

On July 24, 1901, Sir Ernest Satow, British Minister at Peking, 
wrote to Mr. H. G. Squiers of the United States Legation that he 
would accept the arrangement for assuming control of ‘no man’s 
land’ by the municipality of the British ‘Extra’ Concession on the 
following conditions: 

1. The United States Government to reserve the right to exercise exclusive 
military control over the concession in case of necessity. 

2. The United States Government reserve the right to moor a gunboat or 
gunboats at the bund of the United States Concession in case of necessity. 

3. At least one American citizen to be on the Extra Concession Council. 
In the event of there being no American citizen on the Extra Concession 
Council in the ordinary way, the United States Consul should have the right 
to nominate one by virtue of this arrangement. 

4. All transfers of land in the United States Concession to be registered 
at the United States Consulate. 

5. No special regulations which apply to the United States Concession 
and not to other parts of the British Extra Concession to be made without 
the approval of the United States Consul. 

6. The United States Government to reserve the right to terminate the 
arrangement with the British Extra Concession on giving one year’s notice 
and assuming any financial liabilities which may have been incurred for the 
development of the concession with the consent of the United States Consul. 

On September 9, 1901, Minister Conger cabled to Mr. Hay asking 
“if the return of the former United States Concession at Tientsin 
shall be demanded from the Chinese Government,” its only value 
was in the remote contingency of a point to land troops being re¬ 
quired, and that “no Americans are residing or are likely to reside 
there, and that a general international settlement is impossible.” 
On September 14, Minister Conger made a formal application for 
the re-cession to the United States of the old United States Conces¬ 
sion at Tientsin from the Peking Government. But the reply from 
the Chinese authorities was unfavorable. Foreign interests, as Li 
Hung-chang, then Viceroy of Chihli Province, explained, were in 
possession; but at any rate, it seemed certain that some foreign 
concerns were decidedly adverse to having the United States resume 
its former title. As a compromise, the Chinese Government offered 
the United States a much larger and unoccupied tract a long way 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 131 

down the river, outside of all the other concessions. But Minister 
Conger replied that “this would not satisfy us,” since the other tract, 
“even with its present occupants, exactly suited our purpose and was 
the only tract we desired.” On October ii, 1901, Minister Conger 
wrote to Mr. Hay explaining that the difficulties were caused by the 
ownership of the China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company 
and the Chinese Engineering and Mining Company, who were the 
owners of practically all the land in the tract, and that “these com¬ 
panies represent some of the foremost and wealthiest Chinese in the 
Empire, and they do not wish to be turned over, together with their 
property, to foreign jurisdiction, and the Viceroy does not like to 
brook their opposition.” 

This matter was finally settled when Mr. Hay wrote to Mr. 
Conger on November 27 that “in view of the unfitness of the alter¬ 
natively offered tract for either commercial or military use by the 
United States, and recognizing the difficulties in the way of the 
restoration to us of the former concession, by reason of the tenan¬ 
cies which have been established therein since its abandonment by 
us, it seems undesirable to press the matter further at present. 
The Government of the United States will, however, expect to have 
equal favors and facilities with other powers for military purposes 
at Tientsin, should it at any future time become necessary to carry 
out the purposes of the protocol with respect to keeping open com¬ 
munication between Pekin and the sea; and if effective assurance 
in this regard be given we may leave the question of a commercial 
concession in abeyance until the development of commerce in that 
quarter shall make it necessary to claim privileges and facilities on 
the same footing as other powers. We would feel it a duty to 
reserve our right in such a case.” Then Mr. Hay stated: 

It is to be remembered that circumstances have materially changed since 
the United States relinquished its holding at Tientsin, and that we have 
entered into conventional arrangements, and engaged in contingent obliga¬ 
tions which may make it not only expedient, but necessary to secure a posi¬ 
tion of equality at Tientsin in matters of commerce and international policy, 
if our purposes in the direction of enlarged intercourse and the maintenance 
of close relations of good will with China as well as with the powers are to be 
effectively carried out, and, consequently, that we cannot neglect any step 
conducive to those beneficial ends.^^ 

22 United States Foreiin Relations, 1901, pp. 39-59 


132 


Treaty Ports in China 

§ 17. Restoration of Tientsin to Chinese Authorities. 

As early as May 28, 1901, Mr. Rockhill, Special Plenipotentiary 
of the United States to China, reported to the State Department 
that the diplomatic corps at Peking believed “that the evacuation 
of the native city of Tientsin and the transfer by the (International) 
provisional government to the Chinese authorities of the authority 
with which it had been intrusted by the commanders of the troops 
in North China during the period of disorganization resulting from 
the occupation of Tientsin, should be brought to a close as soon as 
possible.” 

On January 20, 1902, Mr. Wu Ting-fang, then Chinese Minister 
at Washington, wrote to Mr. Hay that in view of the fact that the 
Imperial Court had returned to Peking, that peace and order had 
been completely restored, and that as “Tientsin is the port of Peking 
and the seat of the viceregal Government of Chihli, it should be at 
once restored to the administration of the Chinese authorities, so 
that the Viceroy may assume full charge of his office.” He also 
stated that Yuan Shih Kai, the Viceroy of Chihli, informed him that 
the foreign ministers in Peking had already expressed their consent 
to the proposition. He then continued: ‘I am therefore asked to 
bring the matter before you, with the request that you will kindly 
use your friendly offices with the Governments of the other great 
powers, to the end that a day may be fixed for the immediate restora¬ 
tion of the city of Tientsin and its suburbs to the Chinese authori¬ 
ties.” On January 30, Mr. Hay replied Mr. Wu that the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States favored the early evacuation of Tientsin, 
and would consult the occupying powers. 

On January 29, Mr. Hay instructed the United States ambassa¬ 
dors at London, Paris, Berlin, and Rome, and the minister at 
Tokyo, to ascertain the views of the respective governments in 
this matter. In this State Paper, Mr. Hay said: 

It is my understanding that the diplomatic body always adhered to the 
opinion that this occupation should be promptly terminated . . . This 

Government inclines to think that the continued existence of the provisional 
government of the Chinese city and district of Tientsin, which interferes with 
the general administration of affairs in the province, hampers the efforts of 
the Chinese Government to control the people and administer the laws, and 
interferes with the collection of duties pledged to the payment of the indem¬ 
nities, is not consistent with the terms of the final protocol for the with- 


133 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

drawal of the powers from Chihli, and that the restoration of the city and 
district to the Chinese authorities at the earliest day practicable would be 
conductive to the ends sought in the adjustment of the issues between the 
powers and China. This would in no wise affect the question of the presence 
of the detachment of troops of the powers for the maintenance of open com¬ 
munication between the capital and the sea. 

On February 17, Mr. Horace Porter, the United States Ambassa¬ 
dor at Paris, reported to Mr. Hay that the French Foreign Office 
shared the views of the United States Government, and that the 
French Minister of Foreign Affairs also said that the time had come 
when it was advisable to take such action. The French Minister 
also stated that he had information that a majority of the govern¬ 
ments interested were then of this opinion and that the reports 
from Tientsin were to the effect that “the representative of but one 
of the powers has been interposing any active opposition, and that 
he hopes that all may soon be in accord as to bringing about the 
desired action.” In this report, Mr. Porter said that he had received 
a note from the French Foreign Minister stating that instructions 
had been sent to the French representative in China to confer with 
the other diplomatic representatives of the powers and directing 
him to give his assent to such a solution of the question “as may 
receive a general approval and which will comply as soon as possi¬ 
ble with the desire expressed by the Chinese authorities and by the 
United States.” 

On February 12, Mr. Joseph H. Choate, the United States Am¬ 
bassador at London, reported that Lord Lansdowne, British Secre¬ 
tary of State for Foreign Affairs, had expressed himself in favor of 
the speedy withdrawal of the international provisional government. 
Lord Lansdowne also said that it had always been the intent of his 
Government, as he believed of all the powers represented in China, 
to transfer the administration of Tientsin to the Chinese authorities 
as soon as practicable; that the continued existence of the provi¬ 
sional government was not only unnecessary, but an undesirable 
interference with the control by the Chinese Government of affairs 
in that district with the administration of the laws and the collec¬ 
tion of duties, and that it would conflict with the last stipulation of 
the final protocol. 

On February 26, Mr. White, the United States Ambassador at 
Berlin, reported to Mr. Hay that Baron von Richthofen acknowl- 


134 


Treaty Ports in China 

edged the justice of Mr. Hay’s view, and that the German govern¬ 
ment would be glad to see Tientsin relinquished immediately, but 
for the delay of the Chinese in improving the channel of the Peiho. 
Mr. White reminded the German Government of the Chinese con ¬ 
tention that the presence and authority of the Viceroy was needed 
in Tientsin for this very purpose. To this Baron von Richthofen 
answered that no doubt the Viceroy’s presence was desirable, and 
that the German Government was entirely ready to take her full 
share in the withdrawal of foreign troops just as soon as proper 
guaranties for the completion of the Peiho improvement should be 
given. When Mr. White inquired what sort of guaranties were 
needed to meet the views of the German Government, Baron von 
Richthofen answered: “Anything that will insure the completion 
of the work, and probably the only guaranty which will be effective 
will be a pecuniary one.” At this Mr. White inquired whether the 
Baron had reason to expect that the Chinese Government would be 
able and willing to give such a guaranty and in such a shape that 
it would prove effective. To this he answered that he believed it 
could be arranged speedily, and that he saw no serious difficulty in 
the matter. On February 25, Baron von Richthofen made a written 
communication to Mr. White as follows: 

The Imperial Government is entirely in accordance with the views of the 
Government of the United States in looking upon the establishment of the 
provisional government in Tientsin merely as a necessary expedient which 
should be done away with as soon as possible. The Imperial Government, 
however, is in doubt as to whether the provisional government can be done 
away with at the present moment without making uncertain the early com¬ 
pletion of the improvement of the river Peiho, which is indispensable for the 
safety of the foreign legations in Peking. Besides, the foreigners in Tientsin, 
as well as the Chinese there, especially the merchants, according to reports 
which have been received here, are satisfied with the provisional government 
on account of the advantages offered by an integrant administration. Never¬ 
theless, in consideration of the wishes of the American Government, the Im¬ 
perial Government is ready to state its willingness to fix a date, say about the 
middle of the current year, for the abolition of the provisional government. 
In doing this measures must be taken to insure the immediate carrying out of 
the regulation of the river bed up to Tientsin, including the removal of the 
bars before the mouth of the Peiho (for the safety of the foreigners in Peking, 
a matter of equal interest to all the powers), and to preserve to the foreign 
military element a certain amount of control over this work. 


135 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

On February 21, Mr. Prinetti, the Italian Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, informed Mr. Meyer, the United States Ambassador at 
Rome, that the Italian Government did not see, “on principle,” 
any objection to comply with the request of Yuan Shih-kai; but 
that it must withhold its definite answer to the Chinese Minister 
at Rome, who had also requested the same thing, in order that it 
might be possible to act jointly with the powers near which China 
might have taken similar steps. 

On March 7, Mr. Buck, the United States Minister at Tokio, 
reported to Mr. Hay that the Japanese Government shared the 
views of the United States in regard to the abolition of the pro¬ 
visional government at Tientsin, without affecting in any way the 
question of the presence of the foreign detachments for the purpose 
of maintaining free communication between Peking and the sea, 
provided that all the other powers actually participating in the 
provisional government agree to the same thing. 

On July 15, Mr. Conger reported to Mr. Hay that the five minis¬ 
ters of the powers having representatives on the provisional govern¬ 
ment of Tientsin, viz., Great Britain, Germany, France, Japan, and 
Italy, had sent identical notes to the foreign office, stating that 
they would be willing to turn over the city, provided that the Chi¬ 
nese Government signifies its adherence to the following proposi¬ 
tions : 

By Article 8 of the final protocol of September 7, 1901, it was declared 
that the Chinese Government agreed to have the forts at Taku, and others 
which might interfere with free communication between Peking and the sea, 
demolished; and it was added that arrangements had been made for this 
purpose. 

The Chinese plenipotentiaries having expressed to the diplomatic body 
their desire to be relieved of the direct responsibility for carrying out this 
article, the representatives of the signatory powers intrusted the work to the 
Tientsin provisional government. It is not yet entirely completed. In order 
therefore to insure the fulfilment of this article, I have the honor to propose 
to Your Highness that the work of demolition shall, from the moment of the 
dissolution of the Tientsin provisional government, be placed in the hands of 
the G.O.C’s. at Tientsin, the necessary funds being provided out of the 
moneys then remaining in the treasury of the Tientsin provisional government. 

By Article 9 of the same protocol it is provided that the powers shall have 
the right of occupying certain points between Peking and the sea, of which 
the whole of Tientsin is one. Consequently, after the dissolution of the 


136 


Treaty Ports in China 


Tientsin provisional government, foreign troops will continue as hitherto to 
be stationed there, in the places actually occupied by them, and their supplies 
of all sorts continuing, as at present, to be exempt from all taxes or dues 
whatsoever. They will have the right of carrying on field exercises and rifle 
practice, etc., without informing the Chinese authorities, except in the case 
of feux de guerre. 

It is desirable, however, to avoid as far as possible occasions of collision 
between the foreign troops and those of China. I propose, therefore, that 
with this object the Chinese Government shall undertake not to station or 
march any troops within 20 Chinese li (6^ English miles) of the city or of 
the troops stationed at Tientsin; further, in correspondence exchanged 
between the foreign representatives and the Chinese plenipotentiaries, of 
whom Your Highness was one, previous to the signature of the protocol, it 
was agreed that the jurisdiction of the commanders of the posts to be estab¬ 
lished along the line of communications should extend to a distance of two 
miles on either side of the railway, and this arrangement ought to be main¬ 
tained as long as the line of posts specified in Article 9 of the protocol con¬ 
tinue to be occupied. 

I am willing, however, in concert with my colleagues, to consent that the 
Viceroy should have the right of maintaining a personal body-guard in the 
city of Tientsin not exceeding in number 300 men; and also that his excellency 
may maintain an efficient body of river police along the line of the river, even 
where it runs within the two-mile limit above mentioned. 

The demolition of the forts implies an obligation upon China not to recon¬ 
struct them, and the same obligation applies to the walls of Tientsin city, 
which, during the trouble of 1900, were made use of as a fortification directed 
against the security of the foreign settlements. We cannot, however, consent 
that the Chinese Government establish maritime defenses at the mouth of 
the Peiho at Chungwangtao or at Shanhaikuan. 

We propose that the accounts of revenue and expenditure of the Tientsin 
provisional government be audited by two competent persons, one to be 
chosen by the G.O.C’s. at Tientsin, the other by the Viceroy, and the balance 
after deduction of the sum required to complete the demolition of the forts, 
be handed over to the provincial treasury. 

Your Highness will no doubt think it right to agree that no Chinese subject 
who has been in the service of the Tientsin provisional government or of the 
foreign contingent shall be in any way molested on the ground of such service. 

Chinese subjects in the employ of the foreign forces on the lines of com¬ 
munication will be provided with certificates of identity. It appears to me 
necessary that the Chinese Government should admit that in case any such 
Chinese person commits an oflfense the commandant in whose service he is 
should have the right of punishing him or of handing him over to the Chinese 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 137 

authorities as may, in his opinion, be best calculated to secure the ends of 
justice. 

The right of foreign troops to occupy summer quarters when necessary 
ought, in my opinion, to be recognized. 

A list of unexpired punishments imposed by the Tientsin provisional 
government will be furnished when that body is dissolved to the provincial 
government, which ought to undertake to carry them out. No action, either 
criminal or civil, adjudicated by the provisional government can ever be 
opened anew. 

The archives of the Tientsin provisional government I consider should be 
intrusted to the senior consul, and application can be made to him by any 
person entitled to consult them. 

As regards taxation, I consider that the inhabitants of the city and district 
should be regarded as having discharged their duty to the Chinese Govern¬ 
ment during the period of the continuance of the administration of the Tient¬ 
sin provisional government and that no arrears ought to be demanded of 
them under this heading. 

Such are the proposals which I consider it my duty to place before Your 
Highness for the acceptation of the Chinese Government, and I have the 
honor to declare that I am ready to consent to the dissolution of the Tientsin 
provisional government four weeks after I receive from Your Highness an 
intimation that they are accepted. I have only further to request that Your 
Highness will be so good as to designate the official to whom formal delivery 
of the city and district can be made by the council of the Tientsin provisional 
government. 

On July 18, Prince Ching informed Mr. Conger that the Chinese 
Government had accepted the proposal for the restoration of the 
Tientsin city to the Chinese authorities, and said: 

On the loth of the 6th moon, 28th year of Kuang-hsu (July 14, 1902), 
I received a dispatch from certain ministers of the treaty powers, stating that 
in regard to the transfer of the city of Tientsin and the country adjacent to 
the jurisdiction of the Viceroy of Chihli, these foreign ministers were agreed 
(of the same opinion). They also had had the honor of receiving the sanction 
of their respective governments for the abrogation of the provisional govern¬ 
ment, provided only that the Chinese Government should, first of all, dis¬ 
tinctly consent to the conditions proposed, when they, on their part, would 
promise that in four weeks from the day on which consent was given, the 
provisional government of Tientsin should be abrogated. They therefore 
request that it be clearly pointed out to whom, when the time arrives, and 
into whose hands the provisional government should transfer Tientsin city 
and the country adjacent. 


138 


Treaty Ports in China 

I have carefully perused the dispatch with regard to the point that military 
posts should be established along the highway or line of communication from 
Peking to the sea, with powers to control and punish, the distance to extend 
as far as two English miles on each side of the railroad. 

I would remark that according to the doyen. His Excellency Cologan’s 
dispatch of the 6th moon, 27th year of Kuang-hsu (July, 1901), military 
control would only refer to offenses against the railroad, the telegraph lines, 
or against the allies or their property. 

As to the remaining articles I have no objection to make. 

On the 13th of the current moon (July 17) I memorialized the Throne on 
the subject and had the honor of receiving the sanction of the Throne by 
Imperial decree. 

Whereupon, I at once sent replies to the ministers of the treaty powers, 
in order that they might transmit the same to the provisional government 
of Tientsin, that the provisional government be abolished within four weeks, 
and the city of Tientsin and its adjacent country be returned to the Chinese 
administration and handed over to the superintendent of the northern ports, 
who, at the head of the local officials, civil and military, will be there to 
receive it. 

Hereafter, whenever there is need for consultation, the foreign civil and 
military authorities can, from time to time, consult with his excellency the 
superintendent of northern ports, which I hope, will be for the good of the 
place. 

I sincerely appreciate and cannot but express my gratitude to your excel¬ 
lency for the just and friendly way in which you have helped us to obtain 
the confidence of other nationalities in this matter. 

% 18, Treaty Ports opened hy the British Treaty of Shanghai 
{September 5, igo2) and the American Treaty of October 8, IQOJ. 

On September 5, 1902, the British Commissioner, Sir James Lyle 
Mackay, and the Chinese Commissioners, Lu Hai-huan and Sheng 
Hsuan-huai, signed a treaty at Shanghai respecting the commercial 
relations of the two countries. By Article 8, Section 12, the Chinese 
Government agree to open to foreign trade, on the same footing as 
the places opened to foreign trade by the Treaties of Nanking and 
Tientsin, the following places, namely, Changsha in Hunan; Wanh- 
sien in Szechuen; Nganking in Anhui; Waichow (Hui-chow) and 
Kongmoon (Chiangmen) in Kwangtung. By Article 10 it is further 
agreed that Kongmoon shall be opened as a Treaty Port. But by 
Article 8, Section 12, it also provides that foreigners residing in 

23 United States Foreign Relations, 1901, pp. 184-202. 


139 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

these open ports are to observe the municipal and police regulations 
on the same footing as Chinese residents, and they are not to be 
entitled to establish municipalities and police of their own within 
the limits of these Treaty Ports except with the consent of the 
Chinese authorities. 

On October 8, 1903, a treaty between China and the United States 
respecting commercial relations was signed at Shanghai by Edwin 
H. Conger, John Goodnow, and John Seamen on the part of the 
United States, and Lu Hai-huan and Sheng Hsuan-huai on the part 
of China. By Article 12 the Chinese Government agrees that 
Mukden and Antung, both in the Province of Shengking, shall be 
opened by China itself as places of international residence and 
trade, and that the selection of suitable localities to be set apart for 
international use and occupation, and the regulations for these 
places set apart for foreign residence and trade, shall be agreed upon 
by the governments of the United States and China after consulta¬ 
tion together.^'* 

§ Ip. Rights of Foreigners in Peking. 

On October 4, 1901, Prince Ching of the Chinese Board of Foreign 
Affairs wrote to Minister Conger complaining of the continued 
residence in Peking of foreign merchants who located there during 
its occupation by the allied forces. The note stated that “last year 
after the military disasters it became common for merchants of 
various foreign nationalities to rent or seize houses in all parts 
of the city and open shops,” but that, as peace and friendly relations 
had been re-established, seeing that Peking was not in the list of 
treaty ports, the shops and hongs established by these foreign 
merchants ought all be removed to the treaty ports in accordance 
with the treaty stipulations. 

Minister Conger replied on October 10, that merchants and 
other business men of various nationalities had already been given 
permission to carry on business in Peking, and that, if this was so, 
then of course citizens of the United States have the same right; 
but that if all foreign business was to be excluded from the city, the 
United States merchants, if there were any, would be instructed to 
go out with the others. He suggested, however, that it was an 
opportune moment for the Chinese Government voluntarily to 

2^ 95 British and Foreign State Papers 39 et seq., 97 ibid., 721 et seq.\ United States 
Foreign Relations, 1903, pp. 91-119. 


140 


Treaty Ports in China 

place the city on the basis of a treaty port, and that “Peking should 
be the great and convenient entrepot for the vast and populous 
territory behind it, and if so opened Chinese revenue would be in¬ 
creased thereby, the recently re-established peace and friendly 
intercourse would be strengthened and mutual benefits result." 
On November 23, Mr. Hay wrote to Mr. Conger that the State 
Department approved the latter’s reply to the Chinese Foreign 
Office. 

On August 7, 1903, Prince Ching wrote to the Dean of the Diplo¬ 
matic Corps at Peking on the same subject, saying: 

I have the honor to call Your Excellency’s attention to the fact that 
Peking is not by any means a treaty port. According to the treaties, it was 
originally agreed that merchants of the various nationalities should not be 
permitted to purchase houses, reside or establish business houses here. 

Since the coming of the allied forces to Peking in 1900, the merchants of 
their several nationalities have followed them here, have bought houses and 
opened places of business in great number. Moreover, some have sent the 
deeds to the places bought, transmitting them through their ministers in 
Peking to our board to be forwarded to the prefect of Shuntien Fu with fees 
for his seal, and our board has in each case made an exceptional arrangement 
and consented, but now, the general aspect of affairs being settled, we ought 
naturally to return to the old regulation, so as to conform to the requirements 
of the treaties, and we must therefore clearly state that henceforth merchants 
of the various powers will not be permitted to buy any more property in 
Peking for dwellings or to establish places of business, and should there be 
any additional purchases of property and request be made for official stamping 
of the deeds our board will not again agree to any exceptional arrangement 
in the matter. 

Mr. Conger, in a despatch to Mr. Hay of August 21, expressed 
the opinion that it were better not to agree to Prince Ching’s re¬ 
quest, nor to reject it so flatly as to compel a direct and definite 
determination, but to leave the matter open for such future dis¬ 
cussion as events may require. This suggestion Mr. Hay approved. 

The matter was finally settled by the Treaty of Shanghai (Octo¬ 
ber 8, 1903) between China and Japan. By Article 10 “the High 
Contracting Parties hereto agree that, in case of and after the com¬ 
plete withdrawal of the foreign troops stationed in the Province of 
Chihli and of the Legation guards, a place of international residence 
and trade in Peking will be forthwith opened by China itself.” By 
Annexes 6 and 7 of this same agreement, China agrees that a place 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 141 

in Peking outside the Inner City, convenient to both parties and 
free from objections, shall be selected and set apart as a place where 
merchants of all nationalities may reside and carry on trade; that 
within the limits of this place merchants of all nationalities shall be 
at liberty to lease land, build houses and warehouses, and establish 
places of business, but as to the leasing of houses and land belong¬ 
ing to Chinese private individuals, there must be willingness on the 
part of the owners, and the terms thereof must be equitably arranged 
without any force or compulsion; that all roads and bridges in this 
place will be under the jurisdiction and control of China; that 
foreigners residing in this place are to observe the municipal and 
police regulations on the same footing as Chinese residents, and 
they are not to be entitled to establish a municipality and police 
of their own within its limits except with the consent of the Chinese 
authorities; that when such place of international residence and 
trade shall have been opened and its limits properly defined, the 
foreigners who have been residing scattered both within and with¬ 
out the city walls, shall all be required to remove their residence 
thereto, and they shall not be allowed to remain in separate places 
and thereby cause inconvenience in the necessary supervision by 
the Chinese authorities; that the value of the land and buildings 
held by such foreigners shall be agreed upon equitably, and due 
compensation therefor shall be paid; and that the period for such 
removal shall be determined in due time, and those who do not 
remove before the expiry of this period shall not be entitled to 
compensation. 

§ 20. The Whampoo River Conservancy. 

On September 27, 1905, an Agreement for the Whampoo Con¬ 
servancy was signed at Peking by the powers signatories of the 
final protocol of September 7, 1901, and China. The preamble, 
stated: 

With reference to the provisions of the final protocol of 1901 relating to 
the establishment of a Whangpu (Whampoo) conservancy board, its func¬ 
tions and revenues, China being now desirous of substituting a different 
arrangement, assuming charge herself of the work and making herself respon¬ 
sible for the whole costs, and the powers who were parties to the protocol 

26 United States Foreign Relations, 1903, pp. 119-123; 96 British and Foreign State 
Papers, 578, et seq. 


142 Treaty Ports in China 

having given their consent thereto, the following arrangement has been 
agreed to: 

The agreement (Article i) provides that the works in connection 
with the straightening of the channel of the Whampoo River and of 
the improvement of the bars above and below Wusung, together 
with the maintenance of such improvements, shall all be placed 
under the management of the Shanghai Customs Taotai and the 
commissioner of customs, and that the control of the Whampoo 
River police, lights, beacons, sanitary matters, and pilot service, 
shall be under the same control as formerly; that (Article 2) within 
three months from the date of signing the agreement China will her¬ 
self select an engineer well versed in river conservancy work, and 
if a majority of the representatives of the powers parties to the 
final protocol consider him well qualified, China will at once appoint 
him to undertake the work, and that if after the commencement of 
the work a new appointment for reasons deemed valid by a majority 
of representatives becomes necessary, the selection and appointment 
shall be made in the manner above mentioned; that (Article 3) 
for all contracts for undertaking the river works in whole or in part 
and for purchasing materials and machinery and the like, public 
tenders shall be invited and the most advantageous shall be ac¬ 
cepted; that (Article 4) a detailed quarterly report of the work 
done and an account of moneys expended on the river works shall 
be made and forwarded for the inspection of the consular body at 
Shanghai; that (Article 5) the authorization of the Shanghai Cus¬ 
toms Taotai and of the commissioner of customs shall be necessary 
before new bunds or jetties can be constructed, pontoons placed in 
position, or hulks stationed in the river; that (Article 6) the Shang¬ 
hai Customs Taotai and the commissioner of customs shall have 
authority to expropriate existing moorings and to establish a sys¬ 
tem of public moorings in the river; and that (Article 7) no dredging 
or other operations shall be carried out without the authorization 
of the Shanghai Customs Taotai and the commissioner of customs. 
Article 8 provides: 

The Shanghai Customs Taotai and the commissioner of customs shall have 
power to acquire any land outside the foreign settlements necessary for the 
work of improvement and maintenance of the Whangpu (Whampoo) River 
and to dispose of such land. If for this purpose it is considered necessary to 
proceed by way of expropriation, the price in the case of a foreigner’s prop- 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 143 

erty shall be fixed by a commission composed of (i) a person selected by the 
consular authority of the owner, (2) another chosen by the Shanghai customs 
taotai and the commissioner of customs, and (3) of another chosen by the 
senior consul. In case the senior consul is also the consular authority of the 
owner, the consul next in seniority shall choose the third member of the com¬ 
mission. The consular authority of the owner shall provide for the execution 
of the arbitrator’s decision. When the land is the property of a Chinese the 
customs shall fix the price and enforce the decision in an analogous manner. 

Then it provides: 

Foreign and Chinese riparian owners shall have the right of preemption 
over all land formed in front of their property by reclamation from the river 
in the course of the execution of the works of the improvement of the channel 
at a price to be fixed by a commission formed in the same manner as pre¬ 
scribed in the preceding paragraph, or, as the case may be, by the customs 
authorities. 

It also provides (Article 9) that the Chinese Government bears 
the whole costs of the river works and without levying for this 
purpose dues on riparian property, shipping, or goods; and in pro¬ 
viding for the funds for the cost of the river works it (Article 10) 
states: 

China now sets aside and assigns the entire opium duty of Szechuen and 
Hsu-chou Fu in Kiang-su as security for the whole cost of the river works; 
and in accordance with the estimated cost, as stated in the protocol of 1901, 
will annually supply 460,000 haikwan taels for this purpose for a term of 
twenty years. If during any given year after the commencement of the work 
it is necessary to incur an extraordinary expenditure for the purchase of 
materials, machinery, etc., China may raise, to meet it, a loan for the required 
amount and issue bonds on the security of the above-mentioned opium 
revenues. The total sum annually provided for sinking fund and for interest 
on such loan, as well as for expenses of all kinds on account of works and 
maintaining works already completed, shall not be less than 460,000 haikwan 
taels to be paid, to be paid in equal monthly jinstalments by the provincial 
authorities concerned to the Shanghai Customs Taotai and the Commissioner 
of Customs. Should the revenues assigned fall short, the Chinese Govern¬ 
ment will provide the amount specified from other sources. 

Further it provides (Article ii) that if the works are not carried 
out with diligency, care, and economy, by a majority vote, the 
consular body may unite to point out the fact to the Shanghai Cus¬ 
toms Taotai and the commissioner of customs, and call upon them 


144 


Treaty Ports in China 


to direct the engineer to take steps to remedy the matters com¬ 
plained of, and if the work is still not properly done, they may 
recommend the engineer’s dismissal and the selection and appoint¬ 
ment of another engineer, in the manner described in Article 2; and 
that in case no notice is taken by the Shanghai Customs Taotai and 
the Commissioner of Customs of their representatives, the consular 
body may report to the representatives of the powers interested.^® 

§ 21. Reservation of American Rights in the Extension of the 
Japanese Concession at Hankow. 

On June 17, 1907, Mr. K. Midzuno, the Japanese Consul at 
Hankow, informed Mr. Martin, the United States Consul, that he 
had secured from the Chinese authorities an extension of the Japan¬ 
ese Concession at Hankow, and that the area which extended from 
the end of the original Japanese Concession 150 chang northward 
along the river and 120 chang to the west from the bank of the river, 
having been leased “in perpetuity” to the Japanese Government in 
virture of an agreement signed on the 9th of the preceding February 
last by the Taotai and himself, and subsequently sanctioned by the 
respective superiors, the consulate was under instructions to start 
registry of ownership of the land situated within the foregoing limits. 
The Consul, therefore, requested Mr. Martin to notify Americans, 
who might possess land on the concession extension, to produce 
their title deeds at the Japanese consulate for examination and 
registration before or on the i6th of August, 1907. 

On June 19, Mr. Martin reported the matter to Mr. Rockhill, 
the United States Minister at Peking, and stated that the property 
of the Standard Oil Company, both tanks and godowns, was in the 
area which the Japanese Consul announced to his colleagues as the 
Japanese Concession extension. 

On July 8, Mr. Rockhill replied that he could not see any objec¬ 
tion on the part of the Americans to complying with the request for 
producing their title deeds at the Japanese consulate for registration; 
but that, in informing the Japanese Consul that notice to that 
effect had been given, he should be told that the United States 
reserved full extraterritorial rights over American-owned property 
situated in the concession extension, as well as over American 
owners of such property. 

26 United States Foreign Relations, 1904, pp. 186-200; ibid., 1905, pp. 117-124; ibid., 
1910, pp. 353-361. 


145 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

On July 9, Mr. Rockhill, in a report to his Government, clearly 
pointed out that Article 8 of the Agreement for the extension of the 
Japanese Concession was the only stipulation affecting American 
interests. This Article provides that property in the concession ex¬ 
tension purchased by foreigners from Chinese subjects before the 
opening of the Japanese Concession will, unless there is some reason 
existing to prevent it, be dealt with according to the rules in force 
in other foreign concessions, but that as the ‘concession’ is of very 
small area, none but Japanese subjects will be permitted to buy 
land therein after the signing of the agreement. It further declares 
that Chinese subjects will not be permitted to mortgage their prop¬ 
erty in the concession to foreigners (other than Japanese) or to 
rent or sell to them, and that transgressors of this rule “will be 
severely punished by the local Chinese authorities.” Reputable and 
well-to-do foreigners desiring to live within the limits of the Japan¬ 
ese Concession are permitted to do so, but they may not buy land 
therein. In closing his note, Mr. Rockhill said: 

In giving the Consul-general instructions to inform the Japanese Consul 
“that the United States reserves full extraterritorial rights over American- 
owned property situated in the concession extension, etc.,” I was guided by 
the note addressed by Mr. Hay to Mr. Cambon, on June 12, 1899 {Foreign 
Relations 1899, p. 283), in reference to the extension of the French Conces¬ 
sion at Shanghai. 

On August 28, Mr. Rockhill was informed that his action was 
approved by the Department.^^ 

§ 22. The Right of Aliens within the City Walls of a Treaty Port. 

In 1905 the Chinese authorities at Changsha, the Capital of 
Hunan Province, denied that the native city of Changsha was a 
part of the treaty port. This denial was strenuously resisted by 
the British Consul-general at Hankow, who, acting under advices 
from the legation wrote to Messrs. H. Bennertz & Company of 
Changsha that Sir Ernest Satow, the British Minister, had warned 
the Bureau of Foreign Affairs at Pekin that the recent regulations 
restrictive of trade at Changsha were not, in the absence of the 
assent of the Powers, binding on British merchants, and had re¬ 
quired the Bureau to instruct the Changsha Taotai that British 
subjects at Changsha are not obliged to conform to regulations 

27 United States Foreign Relations, 1907, Part I, pp. 224-226. 


146 Treaty Ports in China 

other than those usual at the ordinary treaty ports. The Consul- 
general, therefore, told his correspondents that they were at liberty 
to open business houses and to display their hong’s sign-boards in 
the city of Changsha; and on February 27, 1907, he further wrote 
to them that, as the British Minister considered the city of Changsha 
to be a part of that open port, they were entitled to take goods which 
had passed the Imperial Maritime Customs at Changsha into any 
premises of which they were lawful tenants, within the native city, 
and to dispose of them there. 

This question was finally settled, when the British Consul-general 
succeeded in persuading the Changsha authorities to issue a joint 
proclamation, acknowleding the status of the city as a treaty port. 
This proclamation, after recapitulating portions of treaties made 
between China and Great Britain for the opening of ports for inter¬ 
national trade, and quoting the latest commercial treaty (1903) 
between China and Japan, which permitted Chinese and Japanese 
to establish joint companies for business, and laid down the rules 
governing such bodies, declared that, as the city of Changsha, in 
Hunan, has been opened to trade its status must be similar to the 
treaty ports previously opened. This proclamation further stated 
that the officials, in arriving at this decision, had consulted harmoni¬ 
ously with the British Consul-general, and called upon all concerned 
to act with perfect sincerity in their dealings with the foreign mer¬ 
chants, and in order that “all may live together in peace and friend¬ 
ship.” 28 

In 1908, the Rev. D. W. Nichols, previously connected with the 
Methodist Mission at Nanking, but was then residing in the United 
States, sold to Mr. J. F. Newman, an American citizen, a plot of 
land located within the city walls of Nanking and fronting on the 
main maloo, on which Mr. Newman was then erecting a dwelling 
house. The original deed of purchase was registered in the land 
record book of the American consulate on May 30, 1903. On No¬ 
vember 30, the director of the foreign office at Nanking lodged a 
vigorous protest against the purchase and improvement of the land 
by Mr. Newman, declaring, in support of his protest, that, as Mr. 
D. W. Nichols, when he bought the land was a missionary and had 
bought it for missionary purposes, it could not be diverted, through 
purchase, to other purposes. He further declared that when the 

28 North-China Herald, September 8 , 1905. 


147 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

original deed was registered, the letter of the American Consul with 
which it was sent to the foreign office for stamping stated that the 
property was to be used for missionary purposes. On December 5, 
Mr. McNally, the United States Consul at Nanking, reported the 
matter to Mr. Rockhill, Minister at Peking, who on the i6th of 
December, replied that the American Government considered that 
all the treaty ports in China were open in their entirety for purposes 
of trade and of residence, unless it was otherwise agreed, and that 
at Nanking, no concession or settlement having been agreed upon, 
foreign residents had the right to lease, purchase, transfer, or sell 
real estate within the whole area of the city, whether they were 
missionaries or merchants. He, therefore, instructed Mr. McNally 
not to recognize the limitations which the Chinese authorities at 
Nanking were attempting to impose. Mr. Rockhill’s instruction 
was approved by Mr. Robert Bacon, Secretary of State, in a letter 
addressed to Mr. Rockhill dated February 23, 1909.^® 

§ The Neutrality of the Foreign Settlements in the Treaty Ports 
during the Revolution of 1911. 

During the Revolution of 1911, the Foreign Settlements in the 
Treaty Ports maintained impartial neutrality, the foreign consuls 
issuing proclamations to that effect. At Hankow the British, Ger¬ 
man, French, Russian, and Japanese Consuls issued the following 
proclamation^® in Chinese: 

A Proclamation with Respect to the Observance of Neutrality. 

Whereas at present the Chinese Government is in conflict with the Ming 
Kwoh Chuin (Republican Army), and they have mutually joined in battle, 
in such a juncture, it is provided by international law that, when the govern¬ 
ment of any country is at war with its people, the nationals of other countries 
resident there have nothing to do with the control of its internal affairs, but 
must observe a strict neutrality. They must not harbor or conceal important 
parties on either side or give the slightest assistance to either. In accordance 
with the above, the various consuls notify that a strict neutrality is to be 
observed, and that, as the regulations of the concessions require, armed 
soldiers of either party are not permitted to appear within the concession 
limits, nor are arms of any sort or munitions of war allowed to be stowed 
there. The consuls, in order that they may observe the requirements of 
international law, and maintain the friendly relations which it is their duty 

United States Foreign Relations, 1909, pp. 51 - 55 * 

^^North-China Herald, November 4, 1911, November 18, 1911. 


148 Treaty Ports in China 

to do to the fullest extent, issue this special proclamation and expect the 
assistance of all Chinese officials and people of every rank to lend them aid 
that by the observance of neutrality the end may be accomplished. The con¬ 
suls will be happy to have it so, and the Chinese will be happy to have it so. 

% 24. The Shanghai French Concession Extension. 

In 1912 the French at Shanghai sought to extend the boundary of 
their concession near Sicawei, a residential district, where there 
was a small creek, 1,350 feet in length, named Mayipang. On the 
allegation that condition of the creek was unsanitary, the French 
Municipal Council employed workmen to fill it up, and to construct 
on its course a maloo. The Chinese authorities lodged a strenuous 
protest before the French Consul-general, asserting that the creek 
was outside the French boundary. A joint inspection of the locality 
was then held, the French Consul-general having agreed meanwhile 
to suspend the work. The matter remained unsettled until July, 
1914, when an agreement was concluded between China and France 
at Peking for the inclusion of the outlying portions of the territory 
within the French Concession. The practical effect of the agreement 
was to give a legal sanction to the de facto status of the region 
called “Region des routes exterieures de la Concession francaise,” 
which was gradually coming under the administration and the 
police of the French Concession, and to define the limits of the said 
region, in order to prevent misunderstandings and abnormal inter¬ 
ferences from either side. 

After describing the de facto situation and defining the limits of 
the extension, i. e.. Great Western Road on the north, Sicawei 
Road on the west, Sicawei Creek from the Sicawei Bridge to the St. 
Catherine Bridge on the south, the center of the Chaochuloo (new 
boundary) from the St. Catherine Bridge to the rue Millot, on the 
east, the agreement provides that this region shall in future be 
under the administration and police of the French Concession. The 
eastern boundary is, however, to be policed by French and Chinese 
constables. Chinese troops, funerals, and wedding processions are 
allowed to cross the concession after an understanding with the 
police. The provision of the regulations of 1868 for the appoint¬ 
ment of two members of the Chinese gentry to look after the munici¬ 
pal interests of the Chinese is renewed, and the French municipality 
is required to collect the land tax due to the Chinese Government 
from foreigners and Chinese alike. Other provisions, already in- 


149 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

eluded in the Land Regulations, relating to exemption from taxes 
on cultivated fields, the non-removal of family graves, and the com¬ 
petence of the magistrate of the French Mixed Court to deal with 
cases affecting Chinese, are reaffirmed. The settlement of any 
questions arising as to the new limits is left to the French municipal 
council and the municipal council of the International Settlement.®^ 

§ 25. The Question of Extending the International Settlement at 
Shanghai. 

Early in 1912, the municipal council of the International Settle¬ 
ment at Shanghai established a police sub-station on North Szechuen 
Road Extension, and began to police the Haskell Road. The Chi¬ 
nese residents of the Chapei District therefore held public meetings, 
and strongly protested against this encroachment on their territorial 
jurisdiction. 

On April 17 a Sikh policeman, on patrol duty on North Szechuen 
Road Extension, had reached a point two or three hundred yards 
to the north of Range Road, where he was seized by three Chapei 
police, who after taking away his carbine, set him free. Later in 
the month another Sikh policeman, who, whilst off duty, happened 
to set foot within the Chapei territory, was arrested and hurried to 
a police station, where he was held in custody for several hours. 

On April 29, an officer of the Chapei police was arrested by the 
municipal authorities of the International Settlement for attacking 
on Alabaster Road a ricksha coolie, who was attempting to cut off 
a man’s queue. Later, by way of reprisal the Chapei police arrested 
two Chinese policemen attached to the West Hongkew station of 
the International Settlement, apparently for the reason that they 
were believed to have been instrumental in effecting the arrest of 
the Chapei policeman. On May 9, while these cases were still un¬ 
settled, a Chinese constable, attached to the municipal force, was 
patrolling the Szechuen Road Extension in plain clothes, where, at 
practically the same point where the Sikh policeman was deprived 
of his carbine, he encountered a Chapei policeman, who was armed 
with a sword. Accounts differ as to what then happened, but it 
seems that the municipal policeman tried to arrest the Chapei 
policeman for patrolling a settlement road. The Chapei policeman, 
however, proved to be the stronger, and was gradually dragging the 

31 North-China Herald, June i, 1912; ihid., July 18, 1914. 


150 


Treaty Ports in China 

municipal policeman over the boundary, when the latter got at his 
whistle and blew it for help. The violence of the altercation brought 
aid to both sides, and a serious struggle between the Chapei and 
the municipal police seemed imminent, when the attempt to arrest 
the Chapei policeman was abandoned and both sides withdrew. 

When the queue-cutting case soon afterwards came up for trial 
before the Mixed Court, it was dismissed on the ground of a defect 
in the evidence for the prosecution. A few hours later the two 
municipal policemen, who were held by the Chapei police, were 
released from custody. 

The controversy as to the boundary question continued in vari¬ 
ous forms. The Chapei authorities issued a proclamation instruct¬ 
ing the Chinese residents on the North Szechuan Road to withhold 
the payment of taxes to the Municipal Council of the International 
Settlement. In consequence, when an attempt was made to prose¬ 
cute various Chinese shopkeepers for a breach of municipal regu¬ 
lations in refusing to pay the taxes levied upon them, they declined 
to respond to the summonses issued by the Mixed Court. War¬ 
rants were then issued for their arrest; but this step only led to 
further discussions, while each side continued to contest the attempts 
of the other to exercise jurisdiction. 

On June 14, 1912, an interesting case came up in the Mixed Court, 
involving a charge against a Chapei tax official, a Chapei police 
inspector, and a carpenter, for exercising authority on the Munici¬ 
pal Road Extension, and particularly for affixing plates to a number 
of houses “without having obtained the necessary permit.” The 
case was tried by Mr. Kuan, the magistrate, and Mr. Schirmer, the 
German assessor. The police of the International Settlement, by 
whom the defendants were arrested, were represented by Mr. R. M. 
J. Martin, while Mr. Engel, secretary of the Chapei Board of 
Control, represented the Chapei municipality. It appeared that the 
plates, which bore Chinese characters, were not only affixed to 
private houses, but that one was placed on the police sub-station. 
Mr. Engel, in reply to a question of the assessor, stated that the 
accused were acting under the orders of the Chapei Board of Con¬ 
trol, who had been instructed by the Soochow authorities to make 
a survey of the district; and he expressed the opinion that no 
opposition would have been raised if a plate had not been placed 
on the so-called “police sub-station,” which, he contended, was not 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 151 

in a proper sense a police station but only quarters for the police. 
He maintained that the road was not subject to the International 
Council, and that the Chapei administration had the right to 
number the houses there. The court took the opposite view, and 
sentenced each defendant to one day’s imprisonment from the day 
of arrest, Mr. Engel agreeing, on behalf of the Chapei administra¬ 
tion, to stop the numbering of the houses. 

A controversy also arose as to the Haskell Road, the Mayor of 
Chapei addressing to the Shanghai Tutuh (governor-general) a 
despatch in which he complained that the Municipal Council had 
secretly sent a force and driven out the Chapei police, some of whom 
had even been arrested and detained at the municipal police station. 
These things the despatch denounced as “a slur upon our Republic” 
and as “truly humiliating to the nation.” It further stated that 
Indian constables had been sent to the scene, armed with rifles, and 
that they were using force without regard to the boundary line; and 
that, if this was not prevented, they would soon enter the Shanghai- 
Nanking Railway station, and thus be in a position to interfere with 
the transportation by the Chinese Government of troops and arms. 
The Commissioner of Foreign Intercourse was therefore requested 
to appeal to the Doyen of the Consular body, and a telegram was 
sent to President Yuan Shih-kai petitioning him to ask the British 
and American Ministers at Peking to order the Shanghai municipal¬ 
ity to give way. The discussions have continued; and several 
Chinese officials of high rank have from time to time been deputed 
to report to Peking. Early in 1914 Admiral Tsao spent a fortnight 
at Shanghai for the purpose of ascertaining the opinions of the 
residents of Chapei and others. The inquiry, however, was of a 
private nature, and the report submitted to the Waichiaopu (Min¬ 
istry of Foreign Affairs) was not made known. Later in the year, 
Mr. Yang Tcheng, the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs at Shang¬ 
hai, was summoned to Peking. But the European War soon broke 
out, and as other problems, both domestic and foreign, required 
immediate consideration, and as Great Britain’s attention was 
concentrated on the European war, the matter remained un¬ 
settled.^^ 

^'^North-China Herald, April 6, 1912; ibid., April 27, 1912; ibid.. May 4, 1912; 
ibid.. May ii, 1912; ibid.. May 25, 1912; ibid., June 29, 1912; ibid., July 20, 1912; 
ibid., October 31, 1914; ibid., November 14, 1914- 


152 


Treaty Ports in China 

§ 26. The Question of Extending the French Settlement at Tientsin. 

In 1902 the French Consul at Tientsin sent a communication to 
Tang Shao-yi, then Taotai of Tientsin, applying for an extension 
of the French Concession so as to include the district known as Lao 
Hsi Kai. To this communication the Taotai did not even respond. 
However, the French had policed the area for many years, and 
Chinese legal documents served on Chinese subjects there were then 
compelled to be first submitted to the French police. In July, 1914, 
the appearance of Chinese police on the scene called forth a vigorous 
protest from the French authorities; after which it was agreed that, 
pending the settlement of the French claim, the Chinese and French 
police should act in the area conjointly, neither side increasing the 
number of its force. 

There the matter rested until the spring of 1915, when the French 
Consul, M. Bourgeois, made the fantastic claim that the failure of 
the Taotai to respond to the demand of 1902 was equivalent to 
acquiescence. This time, however, he demanded only half the 
district—350 acres. This demand the Chinese Foreign Office at 
first refused to consider, but it subsequently offered to concede it, 
provided the local opposition in Tientsin, which was great, could 
be overcome. Negotiations continued, but, owing to the temporiz¬ 
ing policy of the Chinese, and the unsettled condition of the Govern¬ 
ment, they made little progress; and when at length the Waichiaopu 
(Foreign Office) on October 18, 1915, asked for further delay, the 
French Charge d’Affaires refused to allow more than forty-eight 
hours. Accordingly, on October 20, the Chinese Government, 
having still failed to yield, some thirty French-Annam ‘peelers’, 
acting under the personal supervision of the French Consul-general, 
seized the territory, and arrested nine Chinese Constables who were 
on duty there. 

When news of this transaction reached the people, indignation 
spread very rapidly. Meetings were held and many impassioned 
speeches were made in the public squares. On October 21, the day 
after ‘the land-grab’, a gathering of 4,000 persons took place at the 
Chamber of Commerce Building, demanding that immediate steps 
be taken for the recovery of the territory. According to one report, 
the crowd would have immediately proceeded to end the French 
occupation but for the arrival of the Chairman and Committee of 
the National Territory Protection Society, organized some time 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 153 

before, who succeeded in calming the people by promising to take 
them to the Governor’s Yamen. 

At the Yamen, the Governor, Chu Chia-pao, denounced the 
French action as aggressive and unreasonable; declared himself 
ready to sacrifice his position and rank, even his life, to the preserva¬ 
tion of the territory of the nation, and promised not to yield the land 
to the French. He added that a detailed report of the affair had 
already been telegraphed to the Central Government, and coun¬ 
selled the people meanwhile to remain calm and refrain from acting 
unwisely. 

When matters reached this point, the Chinese constables, who 
had been illegally arrested by order of the French Consul-general at 
Tientsin, were released, partly because of the disturbances and 
partly because of the intervention of the Special Envoy of the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

On October 28, a mass meeting took place at Tientsin, and resolu¬ 
tions were passed demanding that the whole nation boycott French 
trade and goods; that the circulation of French bank-notes should 
cease; that the French employment of Chinese laborers should stop; 
that nothing should be sold to the French; that a cable be des¬ 
patched to the Chinese Minister at Paris to demand the recall of 
the French Charge d’Affaires and of the Consul-general at Tientsin; 
and that representatives should be appointed to see the President 
and urge him to demand an apology from the French Government 
for the unfriendly act. 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a report to the President, 
took the position that the dispute should be settled by diplomacy, 
but without impairing Chinese sovereignty, or increasing inter¬ 
national friction, or intensifying popular indignation. Two agree¬ 
ments were drawn up, but the French Charge d’Affaires declined to 
accept either of them. At this point the British Minister, Sir John 
Jordan, acting upon the request of his colleagues, tendered his 
services as mediator, and a draft of an agreement was speedily 
arranged. Roughly, it provided that the disputed area should be 
under the joint administration of a commission of three, consisting 
of the Governor of Chihli, one other Chinese, and one Frenchman; 
but police, sanitation, and coustruction were to be under the con¬ 
trol of the French. As an amende honorable, the French agreed to 
permit the Chinese police to exercise authority in the area for an- 


154 Treaty Ports in China 

other fifteen days, after which the new arrangement was to come 
into force. 

When, however, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked for time 
to submit the agreement to the Parliament for ratification, the 
British Minister presented a virtual ultimatum, insisting on the 
signature of the document within a few hours on pain of a rupture 
of negotiations. Thus the negotiations were broken off, and the 
matters rests in a deadlock, with the French in possession of the 
territory. It was a peculiar action for a mediator, and it became 
evident to the Chinese officials that Sir John Jordan was acting, 
not as a mediator, but as the representative of the Entente Allied 
Powers. 

On December 23, Mr. Hu Wei-teh, Chinese Minister at Paris, 
telegraphed to the Peking Government that the French Chamber 
of Deputies had requested the French Government to issue in¬ 
structions to the French Charge d’Affaires at Peking to settle the 
Lao Hsi Kai dispute with China as soon as possible in order to avoid 
impairing the friendship of the two countries and adding to the 
loss and damage suffered by French merchants in China. 

Later the French Charge d’Affaires submitted the following terms 
as a basis of settlement: (i) To punish those who had been on strike; 
(2) To indemnify the losses of French merchants resulting from 
the strike; (3) To dissolve the body of agitators at once; (4) To 
punish as severely as possible the officials who had been negligent 
in the performance of duties of an international character; (5) 
To suspend the publication of all anti-French newspapers; (6) 
To lease Lao Hsi Kai to France for a term of years, at the end of 
which it was to be returned to China. 

This incident has aroused a vast amount of bitterness among 
the Chinese. The press has pointed out, with biting irony, that the 
principles at stake are exactly those principles for which France 
says she is fighting in Europe—the protection of weak nations. 
The people have held heated mass meetings, and much more impor¬ 
tant, there has been brought forth China’s most potent weapon— 
the trade boycott. A committee of leading Tientsin citizens 
telegraphed throughout the country urging the people to suspend 
all trade with French citizens, to accept no notes of the French bank 
in China and to stop the exportation of Chinese labor for munition 
works in France. As a result there has been a serious run on the 


155 


Development of Treaty Ports Since i860 

French bank, and all the workers in the employ of the French have 
left their posts. This kind of ‘strike’ has extended even to the 
street cleaners and the.‘amahs’. The enthusiasm was very great 
among the laboring class, who declared: “Our service is not for 
money, but for the friendship that exists between France and 
China. Since France has extorted Chinese territory and arrested 
Chinese police by force, that friendship is cut short, and so we stop 
dealing with you any more.” This proves that national patriotism 
is growing among the masses of the people, who are willing to 
sacrifice their own enjoyments, comforts, even themselves, for their 
country, and who realize that the cause of the country is really 
theirs. 

As the strike went on the situation became even more serious, 
and the French Concession was reduced to a ‘black region’ for some 
time, as it was forced to go without electric light for a long period 
when the workers in the power plant struck as a protest. Further¬ 
more, the wave of resistance has spread to the other ports from 
which have come urgent telegrams requesting the Government to 
preserve the sovereignty of China over the seized territory. This 
deadly weapon, the trade boycott, has been China’s most potent 
means of reprisal. Its effectiveness has been noticeable in the 
history of international trade, and France has already paid more 
than a ‘boom’ price for her real estate. 

All this bitterness has been caused by something more impor¬ 
tant than the value of the land lost and the humiliation in losing it. 
There is involved a vital principle, and an ugly precedent. China 
finds it impossible to escape the conclusion that she has as much to 
fear from Europe as from Japan, and that the hope that to the west¬ 
ern world at least she had established her right to existence as a 
nation is but an illusion. Confronted with such a sinister example, 
one can hardly be surprised if China, though accustomed for a 
decade to look upon Japanese aggression as her greatest menace, 
should be forced to conclude that the professions made by the 
Western Powers of a desire to preserve her territorial integrity can 
be trusted only so long and so far as advantage may not be found 
in the violation of her sovereign rights.^^ 

33 North-China Herald, October 28, 1916; ibid., November 18, 1916; ibid., November 
25, 1916; ibid., December 30, 1916; Peking Gazette, October, 1916-February, 1917; 
Shanghai Eastern Times, October, 1916-March, 1917. 


Chapter VI 

Municipal Administration of the Treaty Ports 

In the settlement or concession, the function of the municipal 
administration is defined by the Land Regulation of each settlement 
or concession. This municipal administration is to be exercised by 
the Municipal Council. In the Land Regulation of each settlement 
or concession, the qualifications of the candidates for the election 
as members of the Municipal Council are defined; the method for 
the election of these members is provided; the tenure of ofiice is 
regulated. Besides these the Municipal Council are authorized at 
their discretion to appoint out of their own body any number of 
committees for any purpose wherein they are empowered to act.^ 

The Municipal Council are also authorized to execute the deci¬ 
sions, by-laws, and regulations of the settlement; and they may 
appoint such “officers and servants” to carry out the municipal 
regulations and ordinances. The Council are given the power to 
administer the municipal funds for the public use and benefit, at 
their discretion, with due regard to the Budget passed, provided 
they do not exceed the sum voted at the public meeting of the land 
renters. The power to use public land, to construct and repair 
public works, and to purchase and rent land, houses, and buildings 
for municipal purposes, is to be exercised by the Council. Further, 
the Council are authorized to sue all defaulters in the payment of 
all assessments, rates, taxes, and dues whatsoever, levied under the 
municipal by-laws and regulations, in the Consular or the Courts 
under whose jurisdiction such defaulters may be, and to obtain 
payment of the same by such means as shall be authorized by the 
Courts in which such defaulters are sued. The Land Regulation 
also provides that the Municipal Council may sue or be sued in the 
name of their Secretary or in their corporate capacity, and that 

1 Tientsin French Concession Land Regulation, Articles 6-17; Tientsin Russian 
Concession Land Regulation, Chapters 4, 5 and 6; Tientsin German Concession Land 
Regulation, Chapter 3; Tientsin Austro-Hungarian Concession Land Regulation. 
Chapter 2; Tientsin British Concession Land Regulation of 1866, Articles 8, ii, 12 
and 23; Shanghai International Settlement Land Regulation of 1869, Articles 18-23. 


157 


Municipal Administration of Treaty Ports 

such Council or Secretary shall have all the rights and privileges 
which private complainants have to recover and enforce judgments 
obtained by them, and shall also incur the obligations which private 
defendants have in proceedings at law or suits in equity commenced 
against them, provided that the individual members of the Council 
or their Secretary shall not be personally responsible, but only the 
property of the Council 

In suing the Municipal Council or their Secretary, the plaintiff 
must follow the defendant to the Consular Court to which nation¬ 
ality the latter belongs. But in the Shanghai International Settle¬ 
ment, the Municipal Council or their Secretary shall be prosecuted 
before a ‘Court of Foreign Consuls’, which shall be established at 
the beginning of each year by the whole body of ‘Treaty Consuls’.^ 

In all these settlements or concessions, the police force is organ¬ 
ized either under the supervision of the Council or of the Consul. 
The police are required to enforce the municipal regulations, by¬ 
laws, and health ordinances of the settlements or concessions. 
Further, they must secure protection for life and property, and the 
preservation of public peace and order. In the Tientsin German 
Land Regulation of 1906,^ the following duties are assigned to the 
police force: 

1. The protection of life and property. 

2. The enforcement of preventive measures against contagious diseases 
and epidemics. 

3. The enforcement of protective measures against the danger of incen¬ 
diary and inundation; and, in general, against all dangerous acts and enter¬ 
prises which are detrimental to the public welfare. 

4. The maintenance of security and facility for the transportation system. 

5. The authority to grant license for the establishment of industrial 
enterprises. 

6. The supervision of the construction and exploitation of industries. 

7. The supervision of the hotels, taverns and cabarets. 

^Tientsin French Concession Land Regulation, Articles 18-23; Tientsin Russian 
Concession Land Regulation, Chapters 8-9; Tientsin German Concession Land Regu¬ 
lation, Chapter 3; Tientsin Austro-Hungarian Concession Land Regulation, Chapter 2; 
Tientsin British Concession Land Regulation of 1866, Articles 8, ii, 12 and 23; Shanghai 
International Settlement Land Regulation of 1869, Articles 6, 9, 13, 14, 25-27. 

^Shanghai International Settlement Land Regulation, 1869, Article 27; Tientsin 
British Concession Land Regulation of 1866, Article 12; Tientsin French Concession 
Land Regulation, Article 23; Tientsin Russian Land Regulation, Chapter 9; and 
Tientsin German Land Regulation, Chapter 6. 

4 Tientsin German Concession Land Regulation of 1906, Chapter 5. 


158 


Treaty Ports in China 

The municipal administration of the various settlements and 
concessions of the treaty ports may be divided into two separate 
classes. In the first class, we have the centralized form of municipal 
administration, e. g., the French, Russian, German, Austro-Hun¬ 
garian, Italian, and Japanese concessions, where the Consuls of 
these powers respectively are given more powers in regulating and 
supervising over the Municipal Council. On the other hand, in 
the Shanghai International Settlement, the Kulangsu Foreign 
Settlement, and the British Concessions, we have the decentralized 
form of municipal administration. 

The regulation of 1866 for the municipal organization of the 
French Concession at Shanghai is a typical example of the centralized 
form of municipal administration. This characteristic feature of 
French rule, great centralization, is apparent in every article. 
The French Consul is in fact everything, and he possesses the power 
to convoke, suspend, or dissolve the Council whenever he likes.® 
Further, he is given the authority to nominate a provisional council 
for three or six months, which is seldom exercised, as he is also 
possessed of the power to veto or suspend every act it passes until 
he reports to the French Minister at Peking.® Then it is provided 
that the French Consul shall be one of the nine Municipal Counsel¬ 
lors;^ and that he has the right to preside over the Council.^ Then 
the Consul is charged with the maintenance of peace and order; 
and it also provides that he has charge of the police force, the ex¬ 
penses of which are paid by the municipality, and that he appoints 
their agents, suspends or revokes their commissions.® 

On the other hand, the International Settlement at Shanghai, the 
Kulangsu Foreign Settlement, and the British Concessions have a 
decentralized form of municipal administration. The Municipal 
Council of these settlements and concessions are elected by the land 
renters, and no consul has the power to convoke, suspend or dissolve 
them.i® However, the Council at Kulangsu have a Chinese member, 

® Article 3. 

® Articles 8 and lo. 

7 Article 2. 

* Article 7. 

9 Article 13. 

Shanghai International Settlement Land Regulation of i860. Article 15; Kulangsu 
Foreign Settlement Land Regulation of 1902, Article 4; Tientsin British Concession Land 
Regulation, Article 9; Hankow British Concession Land Regulation, Articles 12-14. 


159 


Municipal Administration of Treaty Ports 

who must be appointed by theTaotaiof Amoy.^^ As the consuls cannot 
be members of the Council of these settlements and concessions, 
and as the chairman of the Council must be elected by the members 
among themselves, consequently no consul can ever be president 
of the municipal organization.Further, the supervision of the 
police force in these settlements and concessions is confided to the 
Municipal Council, while in the centralized system it is under the 
charge of the consul. Finally, in the decentralized form of munici¬ 
pal administration, the consul does not have the power to nominate 
a provisional Council, as he has no right to convoke, suspend or 
dissolve the Councilbut there is a judicial control to be exercised 
over them by the ‘Courts of Foreign Consuls’ of the Shanghai 
International Settlement and Kulangsu Foreign Settlement, or by 
the British Consular Courts in the British Concessions, as they may 
be prosecuted before these courts respectively.^^ 

Kulangsu Foreign Settlement Land Regulation of igo2. Article 4. 

Kulangsu Foreign Settlement Land Regulation, Article 4; Shanghai International 
Settlement Land Regulation of i86q, Article 21; Tientsin British Concession Land Regu¬ 
lation, Article 9; Hankow British Concession Land Regulation, Article 13. 

Hankow British Concession Land Regulation of 1902, Articles 12-14; Tientsin 
British Concession Land Regulation, Article 13; Shanghai International Settlement Land 
Regulation, Articles 18-19; Kulangsu Foreign Settlement Land Regulation, Articles 3-4. 

Shanghai International Settlement Land Regulation, Article 27; Kulangsu Foreign 
Settlement Land Regulation, Article 8; Tientsin British Concession Land Regulation, 
Article 12; Hankow British Concession Land Regulation, Article 20. 


Chapter VII 

Foreign Jurisdiction in the Treaty Ports 

§ I. Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in Cases Between Chinese and 
Aliens. 

Among the several earlier and later Acts of the English Parlia¬ 
ment relating to foreign jurisdiction, that of 1843 is notable as being 
the first in which fundamental propositions of law were set forth 
looking to the control of such jurisdiction in its entirety. The thir¬ 
teenth of the general regulations of trade, of July 22, 1843, which 
were subsequently incorporated in the Supplementary Treaty with 
Great Britain of October 8, 1843, provided that the punishment of 
English criminals should be left to the English Government, which 
would enact the laws necessary to attain that end, and would em¬ 
power its Consuls to put them in force. This statement is far less 
explicit than that which was incorporated in the American Treaty 
of July 3, 1844. The latter treaty, setting forth with lucidity and 
precision of the principle of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the treaty 
ports, provides (Article 21) that “subjects of China who may be 
guilty of any criminal act towards citizens of the United States shall 
be arrested and punished by the Chinese authorities according to 
the laws of China; and citizens of the United States who may 
commit any crime in China shall be subject to be tried and punished 
only by the Consul, or other public functionary of the United States, 
thereto authorized, according to the laws of the United States.” ^ 

This stipulation apparently formed the basis of the jurisdictional 
clause (Article 27) of the treaty between China and France, signed 
at Whampoa, October 24, 1844, but there are certain differences. 
While the American treaty speaks of crimes committed by citizens 
of the United States “in China,” the French treaty speaks of crimes 
and offenses committed by Frenchmen “in the five ports.” ^ This 
limitation was, however, removed by the French treaty (Article 38) 
of June 27, 1858, which substitutes for the phrase “five ports” the 

I31 British and Foreign State Papers, 132 et seq.\ 32 ibid., 791 et seq. 

2 34 British and Foreign State Papers, 1298 et seq. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports i6i 

words “in China.” ^ Another difference is that the French treaty- 
stipulated that French offenders should be “arrested” by the Consul. 
The American treaty provided that American offenders should be 
“tried and punished” by the Consul or other public functionary of 
the United States, but said nothing as to their arrest. That this 
silence implied that the power to arrest was not taken from the 
Chinese authorities is a supposition confirmed by the treaty be¬ 
tween the United States and China, concluded at Tientsin, June i8, 
1858, which expressly stipulates (Article ii) that “arrests in order 
that trial may be made by either the Chinese or the United States 
authorities.” ^ 

Since 1844 the jurisdictional provisions of the treaties have fol¬ 
lowed either the French or the American model. In harmony with 
the French treaties, in denying to China the right of arrest; are the 
German Treaty of September 2, 1861; the Danish Treaty of July 
13, 1863; the Belgian Treaty of November 2, 1865; the Italian 
Treaty of October 26, 1866; the Austro-Hungarian Treaty of Sep¬ 
tember 2, 1869; the Brazilian Treaty of October 3, 1881; and the 
Mexican Treaty of December 14, 1899. In harmony with the 
American treaty, in permitting China to share the right of arrest, 
are the Swedish and Norwegian Treaty of March 20, 1847; the 
British Treaty of June 26, 1858; the Russian Treaty of June 1-13, 
1858; the Spanish Treaty of October 10, 1864; the Portuguese 
Treaty of December i, 1887; and the Japanese Treaty of July 21, 
1896. 

Now we come to the subject of the civil jurisdiction in cases be¬ 
tween Chinese and aliens. On this subject it is to be noticed that 
the provisions of the treaties concluded between China and the 
foreign powers are as a whole similar in meaning and very often 
somewhat similar in language. Two modes of settling mixed con¬ 
troversies are provided by Article 13 of the general regulations 
which is incorporated into the British Compact of October 8, 1843. 
When the British Treaty of June 26, 1858, was made, this article 
was abrogated but its contents were incorporated into Article 17 of 
the new compact. By this Article it provides that “a British subject 
having reason to complain of a Chinese must proceed to the consu¬ 
late and state his grievance. The Consul will inquire into the merits 

351 ibid., 637 et seq. 

* Koo, V. K. W., The Status of Aliens in China, pp. 168-169. 


162 Treaty Ports in China 

of the case and do his utmost to arrange it amicably. In like 
manner, if a Chinese have reason to complain of a British subject, 
the Consul shall no less listen to his complaint and endeavor to settle 
it in a friendly manner. If disputes take place of such a nature 
that the Consul cannot arrange them amicably, then he shall request 
the assistance of the Chinese authorities, that they may together 
examine into the merits of the case and decide it equitably.” Thus, 
by the one, amicable method, and by the other, a prosecution of a 
suit to be decided by the authorities of the two nations, are provided 
for in the treaty for the settlement of controversies between the 
subjects of the two countries, and the same system is provided for 
in the treaties with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, 
Russia, Spain, and Sweden and Norway. 

By Article 24 of the American Treaty of July 3, 1844, provisions 
are made that “if citizens of the United States have special occasion 
to address any communication to the Chinese local officers of the 
Government, they shall submit the same to their Consul, or other 
officer, to determine if the language be proper and respectful, and the 
matter just and right; in which event he shall transmit the same 
to the appropriate authorities for their consideration and action 
in the premises. In like manner, if subjects of China have special 
occasion to address the Consul of the United States, they shall sub¬ 
mit the communication to the local authorities of their own Govern¬ 
ment, to determine if the language be respectful and proper, and 
the matter just and right; in which case the said authorities will 
transmit the same to the Consul, or other functionary, for his con¬ 
sideration and action in the premises. And if controversies arise 
between citizens of the United States and subjects of China, which 
cannot be amicably settled otherwise, the same shall be examined 
and decided conformably to justice and equity by the public officers 
of the two nations acting in conjunction.” Article 16 of the same 
treaty provides that “the Chinese Government will not hold itself 
responsible for any debts which may happen to be due from sub¬ 
jects of China to citizens of the United States, or for frauds com¬ 
mitted by them; but citizens of the United States may seek redress 
in law; and on suitable representation being made to the Chinese 
local authorities through the Consul, they will cause due examina¬ 
tion in the premises, and take all proper steps to compel satisfac- 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 163 

tion. But in case the debtor be dead, or without property, or have 
absconded, the creditor cannot be indemnified according to the old 
system of the co-hong, so-called. And if citizens of the United 
States be indebted to subjects of China, the latter may seek redress 
in the same way through the Consul, but without any responsibility 
for the debt on the part of the United States.” 

This American Treaty of 1844 was replaced by the Treaty of 
June 18, 1858. By Article 24 of the new treaty, it provides that 
“where there are debts due by subjects of China to citizens of the 
United States, the latter may seek redress in law; and on suitable 
representations being made to the local authorities, through the 
Consul, they will cause due examination in the premises, and take 
proper steps to compel satisfaction. And if citizens of the United 
States be indebted to subjects of China, the latter may seek redress 
by representation through the Consul, or by suit in the Consular 
Court; but neither Government will hold itself responsible for such 
debts.” Article 28 of the Treaty of 1858 is identical to Article 24 
of the Treaty of 1844, with the following addition: “The extortion of 
illegal fees is expressly prohibited. Any peaceable persons are allowed 
to enter the court in order to interpret, lest injustice be done.” 

In the American treaties there is to be found a third mode for 
the settling of mixed controversies. Seeking redress by representa¬ 
tion through the Consul is different from that by suit in the Consular 
Court, as by Article 24 of the Treaty of 1858 it clearly provides that 
redress may be secured either “by representation through the Consul 
or by suit in the Consular Court.” 

Among these three modes of settling controversies between 
Chinese and aliens in the treaty ports, amicable settlement has 
always been in practice as the most workable method. This is due 
to the fact that the foreign element in the ports is always small 
when comparing with the Chinese residents, and moreover in the 
past it has been the customs and practices among the merchants in 
China to settle their disputes in the guilds.^ Mr. I. F. Shepard, 
American Consul at Hankow, once stated: 

Several cases have been brought to me by Chinamen for breach of civil 
contract by Americans—for non-payment of wages claimed and for moneys 

5 61 British and Foreign State Papers. 159; 56 ibid., 667; 72 ibid., 560; 61 ibid.. 171; 
34 ibid., 1298; 51 ibid., 637; 51 ibid., 1248; 61 ibid., 144; 88 ibid., 473; to ibid., 766; 
78 ibid., 521; 53 ibid., 966; 60 ibid., 474; 56 ibid, 1097; 32 ibid., 791; United States 
Foreign Relations, 1879, pp. 224-225. 


164 . Treaty Ports in China 

due in various ways. As the official of the defendant, I have, in every sep¬ 
arate case, been enabled to bring matters to a satisfactory settlement by 
conference and advice without the necessity of any formal trial. Thus no 
occasion has arisen for either party to demand an appeal nor for me to call 
for a formal judicial sitting with a native official, either as a court of the 
defendant with a Chinese magistrate advising, or as a mixed court . 

§ 2. Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in Cases Between Aliens. 

The first statement of the exemption of aliens in China from 
Chinese jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases arising between 
themselves may be found in the American Treaty of 1844, which 
provides (Article 25) that “all questions in regard to rights, whether 
of property or person, arising between citizens of the United States 
in China, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of, and regulated by 
the authorities of their own Government,” and that “all controver¬ 
sies occurring in China between citizens of the United States and 
the subjects of any other Government shall be regulated by the 
treaties existing between the United States and such Governments, 
respectively, without interference on the part of China.” These 
clauses are reproduced in Article 27 of the American Treaty of 
1858.6 

Precisely similar stipulations were incorporated in Article 25 of 
the Treaty of 1847 with Sweden and Norway,^ Article 15 of the 
Treaty of 1858 with Great Britain,^ Article 40 of the Treaty of 
1869 with Austria-Hungary,^ Article 20 of the Treaty of 1865 with 
Belgium,^6 Article ii of the Treaty of 1881 with Brazil,^^ Article 15 
of the Treaty of 1863 with Denmark,^^ Article 39 of the Treaty of 
1858 with France, Article 39 of the Treaty of 1861 with Prussia, 
Article 15 of the Treaty of 1866 with Italy,^® and Article 15 
of the Treaty of 1899 with Mexico.^® Dr. Koo in his monograph 
stated: 

«32 British and Foreign State Papers, 791. 

7 56 ibid., 1097. 

8 48 ibid., 47. 

861 ibid., 159. 

56 ibid., 667. 

72 ibid., 560. 

12 61 ibid., 171. 

13 51 ibid., 637. 

14 51 ibid., 1248. 

16 61 ibid., 144. 

16 88 ibid., 473. 

i’^ V. K. W., Koo., The Status of Aliens in China, p. 179. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 165 

With regard to controversies in China in which Chinese subjects are not 
involved, the principle which China observes is that of non-intervention. 
Questions of rights, whether personal or of property, arising in China between 
subjects of the same treaty power are subject to the jurisdiction and regulated 
by the authorities of their own government. Those occurring in Chinese 
territory between the subjects of two different powers are disposed of in 
accordance with the provisions of treaties existing between them. In such 
cases the general practice is that they are arranged officially by the consuls 
of both parties without resort to litigation; but where amicable settlement 
is impossible, the principle of jurisdiction followed is the same as in those 
between China and a foreign power, namely, that the plaintiff follows the 
defendant into the court of the latter’s nation. 

§ 3. Foreign Courts and the British System of Foreign Jurisdiction 
in the Treaty Ports. 

The tribunal, which the treaty-powers ordinarily provide for the 
exercise of jurisdiction over their respective subjects in the treaty 
ports, is the Consular Court. Each Consular Court is presided 
over by a Consul, who, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him 
by the laws of his nation, hears and decides cases between his 
nationals and those in which the latter are defendants. Some pow¬ 
ers provide for the exercise of appellate or original jurisdiction by 
their ministers at Peking, other authorize an appeal from their 
Consular Courts to their colonial or home courts; and as the exer¬ 
cise of the jurisdiction conceded by the treaties is regulated by the 
statutes of the countries to which the concession is made, the powers 
of the ministers and consuls vary with the laws of their respective 
countries. For instance, the Russian and Spanish laws provide that, 
where grave crimes are committed, the offenders must, after a 
summary inquiry, be sent to their respective countries for trial and 
punishment.^® As the result of the fact that the foreign courts not 
only are numerous but also vary in their powers, the situation as 
regards the administration of justice has become very complicated. 
As early as 1879, when the foreign community at Shanghai was much 
smaller and conditions were much simpler than they are now, the 
United States Consul-General wrote: “The multiplicity of courts 
established in Shanghai may be fairly said to constitute the most 

18 De Clerq and De Vallet, Guide pratique des Consulats, vol. ii, p. 600; Article 8 of 
the Russian Treaty of November 2-14, i860; Article 13 of the Spanish Treaty of 
October 10, 1864. 


166 Treaty Ports in China 

cumbersome judicature known to exist in any considerable center 
in the world.” 

Among the earlier acts of the British Parliament relating to for¬ 
eign jurisdiction, that of 1843 is notable as being the first which 
undertook to regulate the subject fundamentally and in its entirety. 
This and subsequent enactments were consolidated in the British 
Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890. This Act, after reciting that the 
British Crown has “by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, 
and other lawful means,” acquired “jurisdiction within divers for¬ 
eign countries,” declares that it shall be lawful for the Crown “to 
hold, exercise, and enjoy” any such jurisdiction then or thereafter 
possessed “within a foreign country, in the same and as ample a 
manner as if Her Majesty had acquired that jurisdiction by the 
cession or conquest of territory.” The Act is also declared to extend 
to British subjects resident in or resorting to a country not subject 
to a Government from which the Crown might obtain jurisdiction 
in the manner above recited; and, in all cases, anything done in a 
foreign country in the exercise of the jurisdiction defined in the Act 
is declared to be “as valid as if it had been done according to the 
local law then in force in that country.” In effect the Act gives or 
confirms certain legislative powers exercised or to be exercised by 
the Crown in Council in regulation of the foreign jurisdiction.^^ It 
also provides (Section 4) that “if in any proceeding, civil or criminal, 
in a court in Her Majesty’s dominions or held under the authority 
of Her Majesty any question arises as to the existence or extent of 
any jurisdiction of Her Majesty in a foreign country, a Secretary 
of State shall, on the application of the court, send to the court with¬ 
in a reasonable time his decision on the question, and his decision 
shall for the purposes of the proceeding be final.” Then it (Section 6) 
provides in detail under what forms of law the Crown in Council 
may authorize the transfer of criminal offenders from foreign to 
British possessions and may also provide for their trial within those 
possessions. Further it provides that “if any Order in Council made 
in pursuance of this Act as respects any foreign country is in any 
respect repugnant to the provisions of any Act of Parliament ex- 

Mr. Bailey to Mr. Seward, September 15, 1879, United States Foreign Relations* 
1879. P- 231. 

20 53 and 54 Viet., cap. 37. 

21 Hall, Foreign Powers and Jurisdiction of the British Crown, p. 9; Piggott, Exterri¬ 
toriality, p. 26. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 167 

tending to Her Majesty’s subjects in that country, or repugnant to 
any order or regulation made under the authority of any such Act 
of Parliament or having in that country the force and effect of any 
such Act, it shall be read subject to that Act, order, or regulation, 
and shall, to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be 
void;” that “an Order in Council made in pursuance of this Act 
shall not be, or be deemed to have been, void on the ground of repug¬ 
nancy to the law of England unless it is repugnant to the provisions 
of some such Act of Parliament, order, or regulation as aforesaid;” 
and that it (Section 14) shall be lawful for the Crown in Council to 
make any law that may be necessary for the Government of the 
British subjects on board any vessel at a distance of not more than 
100 miles from the coast of China. 

The foregoing sketch of the Act of Parliament respecting foreign 
jurisdiction is enough to indicate how little direct legislation has 
been included in it and to suggest that in confirming the Orders in 
Council made or that should be made in pursuance of the act and 
in conformity with it. Parliament designed to leave practically the 
entire provision for and regulation of the foreign jurisdiction to the 
Crown in Council. As a rule, each of these Orders in Council applies 
to one country alone. Consequently, the Orders have been volum¬ 
inous, both because of the number of the countries where the juris¬ 
diction has been exercised and because of frequent revisions. The 
more recent Orders are much longer and in greater detail than the 
earlier. They contain in elaborate form the adaptations of English 
law which experience has shown to be necessary for the protection 
and control of the long-established and wide-spread interests of 
British subjects residing or trading in the Orient. In general, their 
field is no less extensive than that occupied by the other and some¬ 
what similar Orders in Council for the government of the Crown 
colonies. 

Under the Order in Council respecting China and Corea of Octo¬ 
ber 24, 1904,^^ another development of foreign jurisdiction took 
place. After dealing with various matters relating to its own 
application and interpretation ,^3 the Order,defines the constitution 
and powers of “His Britannic Majesty’s Supreme Court for China 

22 London Gazette, October 28, 1904. 

23 Articles 1-6. 

24 Articles 7-18. 


168 Treaty Ports in China 

and Corea.” This court consists of a judge and as many assistant 
judges as may be appointed by warrant under the royal sign manual. 
Any two judges sitting together may constitute “the Full Court;” 
and, where only two judges are sitting, if a difference arises between 
them, the opinion of the Judge, or, in his absence, the Senior Assist¬ 
ant Judge, prevails.^® In case of a vacancy in the office of Judge, or 
in case of his illness or incapacity, or of his absence from the district 
of the Consulate of Shanghai, the Secretary of State may appoint a 
fit person to act in his place, the Assistant Judge or Senior Assistant 
Judge having meanwhile the power to act. An Acting Judge pos¬ 
sesses, during the continuance of his appointment, all the power and 
authority of the Judge.^® In case of a vacancy in the office of an 
Assistant Judge, or in case of his absence, or illness, or other inca¬ 
pacity, the Judge may, by writing under his hand and the seal of 
the Supreme Court, appoint any fit person, approved by the Secre¬ 
tary of State, or by the British Minister at Peking, to act in his place; 
but such an appointment may be revoked either by the Judge or 
by the Secretary of State.^^ The Supreme Court has also a sheriff, 
a Crown advocate, a registrar, a chief clerk, a marshal, and such 
other officers and clerks under such designations as the Secretary 
of State thinks fit.^® The sheriff is given the powers and authorities 
of the sheriff of a county in England, with all the privileges and 
immunities of the office, and is in charge with the execution of all 
decrees, orders, and sentences made and passed by the Supreme 
Court, on the requisition in that behalf of the Supreme Court; and 
he is to be entitled to such fees and costs as the Supreme Court may 
direct.^® The Supreme Court is to sit ordinarily at Shanghai; but 
may, if it seems expedient, sit at any other place within the limits 
of this Order, and may at any time transfer its ordinary sittings to 
any such place as the Secretary of State approves; and the Judges 
may sit at the same time at different places, and each sitting shall 
be deemed to be a sitting of the Supreme Court.”®® Then it provides 
that “the Judge, or, under his directions, an Assistant Judge, may 
sit, in a magisterial or judicial capacity, any place in China or 

26 Article 7. 

26 Article 8. 

27 Article 9. 

28 Article 12. 

29 Article 13. 

80 Article 17. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 169 

Corea, and there inquire of, or hear and determine, any case, civil 
or criminal, and may examine any records or other documents in 
any Provincial Court, and give directions as to the keeping thereof.”®^ 
In providing for the British Provincial Courts it says that every 
commissioned consular officer, with the exception of those at Shang¬ 
hai and with such other exceptions, if any, as the Secretary of State 
thinks fit to make, shall for and in his consular district hold and 
form a court, in this Order referred to as a Provincial Court; that 
where the British Minister in China or Corea, appoints any person 
to be Acting Consul-General, Consul, or Vice-Consul at any port 
or place in China or Corea which is for the time being open to for¬ 
eign trade, and at which no commissioned consular officer is resident, 
that person shall hold and form a Provincial Court for the district 
for which he is appointed to act; that every Provincial Court shall 
be styled “His Britannic Majesty’s Court at Canton” (or as the case 
may be); and that every Provincial Court may, with the approval 
of the Judge of the Supreme Court, appoint a competent person, 
or persons, to perform such duties and to exercise such powers in 
and for that Court as are by this Order and any rules of Court im¬ 
posed or conferred upon the Registrar and Marshal respectively, 
and any person so appointed shall perform such duties and exercise 
such powers accordingly.®^ The jurisdiction of the courts are then 
defined.®® The Supreme Court, and each Provincial Court, are, in the 
exercise of every part of its jurisdiction. Courts of Record.®^ The 
Crown’s jurisdiction, civil and criminal, including^any jurisdiction 
by this Order conferred expressly on a Provincial Court, is for and 
within the district of the consulate of Shanghai vested exclusively 
in the Supreme Court as its ordinary original jurisdiction;®® but 
all the Crown’s jurisdiction, civil and criminal, not under this order 
vested exclusively in the Supreme Court, is to the extent and in the 
manner provided by this Order vested in the Provincial Courts.®® 

§ 4. The American System of Foreign Jurisdictionin the Treaty Ports. 

The first legislation of the United States for regulating and defin¬ 
ing the judicial functions of ministers and Consuls of the United 

81 Article i8. 

32 Article 19. 

33 Articles 20-31. 

34 Article 20. 

35 Article 21. 

36 Article 22. 


170 


Treaty Ports in China 

States was approved on August ii, 1848. The next statute, which 
was more comprehensive than that of 1848, was approved on June 
22, i860. 

The legislation of August ii, 1848, and June 22, i860, were 
amended by the Acts of July 28, 1866, July i, 1870, March 23, 1874, 
and February i, 1876. These enactments are all consolidated in 
the Revised Statutes of the United States, Sections 4083-4130.^^ 

In the Revised Statutes of the United States, provisions are made 
to the effect that these statutes are to be applied to China, Japan, 
Siam, and many other countries.^^ By these provisions ministers 
and Consuls are invested with judicial authority so far as the 
treaties allow.®® This authority extends in criminal matters to the 
trial and punishment of offenses committed by American citizens, 
and in civil matters to all controversies between American citizens 
or others, so far as the treaties provide.^® The jurisdiction of the 
minister in civil matters and also in criminal matters, except in 
capital cases for murder, or insurrection, or for offenses amounting 
to felony, is appellate only, unless the consular officer is interested 
either as a party or as witness.^^ 

The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, must be exercised in 
accordance with the laws of the United States; or if they be un¬ 
suitable or deficient, with the common law and the law of equity 
and admiralty; or if all these do not furnish appropriate and suf¬ 
ficient remedies, with decrees and regulations having “the force of 
law” which the ministers may make to supply such defects and 
deficiencies.^® The ministers in making decrees and regulations are 
required to take the advice of such Consul in their respective coun¬ 
tries as may be consulted without prejudicial delay or inconvenience. 
The consuls thus consulted are required to signify their assent or 
dissent in writing. The minister may then cause the decree or regu¬ 
lation to be published, together with the opinions of his advisers; 
if he does so, the decree or regulation becomes obligatory till it is 
annulled or modified by Congress; and he is required, as speedily 

Moore, Digest of International Law, vol. ii, p. 613 et seq. 

38 Revised Statutes, sections 4083-4130. 

89 Revised Statutes, section 4083. 

^0 Revised Statutes, sections 4084-4085. 

Revised Statutes, section 4109. 

42 Revised Statutes, section 4086. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 171 

as may be after publication, to transmit the papers to the Secretary 
of State to be laid before Congress for revision.'** 

The consul sitting alone may decide all cases where the fine im¬ 
posed does not exceed $500, or the term of imprisonment ninety 
days.^^ But if legal perplexities are likely to arise or if the punish¬ 
ments are likely to exceed those specified, he must summon from 
one to four, and in capital cases not less than four, American citi¬ 
zens to sit as associates in the trial.^^ If any of the associates differs 
from the consul the case must be remitted to the minister.^® Capital 
cases for murder or insurrection against the Government or for 
offenses against the public peace amounting to felony, may be tried 
by the minister, but if tried by a consul, there can be no conviction 
unless the consul and his associates all concur in it and the minister 
approves.^^ The minister may also issue writ to “prevent the citi¬ 
zens of the United States from enlisting in the military or naval 
service ... to make war upon any foreign power with whom 
the United States are at peace, or in the service of one portion of 
the people against any other portion of the same people; and he 
may carry out this power by a resort to such force belonging to the 
United States, as may at the time be within his reach.” 

In civil cases the consul sitting alone may render judgment where 
the damages demanded do not exceed $500, but when the damages 
exceed that amount, or the case involves legal perplexities, he must 
summon two or three citizens of the United States, if such are 
residing at the port, to sit with him as associates in the trial 

In criminal cases an appeal lies to the minister (i) where the consul 
sits with associates and one of them differs from him; and (2) where 
the consul sitting alone imposes a fine of more than $100 or imprison¬ 
ment of more than sixty days.*® From the sentences of the minister 
to China or Japan, whether original or appellate, an appeal lies 
to the United States Circuit Court in California. 

« Revised Statutes, sections 4117-4119. 

Revised Statutes, section 4089. 

45 Revised Statutes, section 4106. 

46 Revised Statutes, section 4106. 

47 Revised Statutes, sections 4090, 4102. 

48 Revised Statutes, section 4090. 

49 Revised Statutes, section 4107. 

50 Revised Statutes, sections 4089, 4091, 4105, 4106. 


172 


Treaty Ports in China 

In civil cases an appeal lies to the minister where one of the 
associates differs from the consul.®^ In China and Japan an appeal 
lies to the minister where the matter in dispute exceeds $500 but 
not $2,500; where it exceeds $2,500, an appeal lies to the United 
States Circuit Court in California.^^ Where the matter in dispute 
exceeds $2,500, a similar appeal is allowed from any final judgment 
of the minister to China or Japan, given in the exercise of original 
jurisdiction.®® 

In 1881 President Arthur stated in his annual message that 
changes in the system were desirable, and he transmitted an opinion 
of Secretary of State Blaine in regard to the direction which these 
changes might profitably take.®^ 

In 1882 Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, writing to Mr. 
Windom, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the 
Senate, on the importance of such legislation, stated that a compari¬ 
son of the legislation of the United States with that of Great Britain 
and France would “probably be sufficient to satisfy the committee 
how far the American in these foreign colonies fails to receive from 
his Government the protection which is accorded to other foreign¬ 
ers.”®® Accompanying this letter there was a draft of a bill drawn 
by Mr. Bancroft Davis, Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr. 
O’Connor, Solicitor of the Department of State, which proposed the 
creation of three district courts for China, at Shanghai, Tientsin, 
and Canton, respectively, and a fourth for Japan, but with a Su¬ 
preme Court over all at Shanghai; and provided for appeals from 
the consular courts to these tribunals instead of to the Minister at 
Peking or the United States District Court in California.®® This 
bill was much modified in the Senate. Another was introduced in 
the House in 1884, but, beyond a report upon it, no action was taken. 
On April 5, 1906, an Act was enacted by Congress for the reorganiza¬ 
tion of the consular services of the United States, which only indi¬ 
rectly affects the exercise of foreign jurisdiction. 

Revised Statutes, section 4095. 

62 Revised Statutes, section 4093. 

63 Revised Statutes, section 4094. 

64 Senate Miscellaneous Document, 21, vol. i, 47th Congress, First Session; Moore, 
Digest of International Law, vol. ii, pp. 593-653. 

Ibid., 89, vol. i, p. 3, 47th Congress, First Session. 

Ibid, 89, vol. i, p. 210, 47th Congress, First Session; House Report, 2250, pp. 
1-8, 48th Congress, Second Session. 



173 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 

During the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress there was 
introduced in the Senate a bill for the establishment of a United 
States Court for China. On March, 1906, Congressman Edwin 
Denby, of Michigan, son of a former minister to China, introduced 
a bill in the House, and his success in persuading his colleagues of 
the necessity of creating the United States Court for China depended 
chiefly on his prestige as having a very intimate knowledge of the 
international relations of China. The bill was reported in the Senate 
with much amendment, and it was finally approved as the Act of 
June 30, 1906. On the same date, a separate Act was passed 
providing the appropriation for the salaries of the officials of this 
Court. 

The Act of June 30, 1906, establishing a United States Court for 
China declares that “be it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
that a court is hereby established, to be called the United States 
court for China, which shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases 
and judicial proceedings whereof jurisdiction may now be exercised 
by the United States Consuls and Ministers by law and by virtue 
of treaties between the United States and China, except in so far 
as the said jurisdiction is qualified by Section 2 of this Act. The 
said court shall hold sessions to Shanghai, China, and shall also 
hold sessions at the cities of Canton, Tientsin, and Hankow at stated 
periods, the dates of such sessions at each city to be announced in 
such manner as the court shall direct, and a session of the court shall 
be held in each of these cities at least once annually. It shall be 
within the power of the judge, upon due notice to the parties in 
litigation, to open and hold court for the hearing of a special cause 
at any place permitted by the treaties, and where there is a United 
States consulate, when, in his judgment, it shall be required by the 
convenience of witnesses, or by some public interest. The place of 
sitting of the court shall be in the United States consulate at each 
of the cities, respectively.” The United States Consuls in the cities 
of China to which they are respectively accredited have the same 
jurisdiction as they now possess in civil cases where the sum or 
value of the property involved in the controversy does not exceed 
$500 and in criminal cases where the punishment for the offense 
charged cannot exceed by law $100 fine or sixty days’ imprisonment, 
or both, and have power to arrest, examine, and discharge accused 


174 


Treaty Ports in China 

persons or commit them to the said court.®^ From all final judg¬ 
ments of the consular court either party has the right of appeal to 
the United States Court for China, provided, also “that appeal may 
be taken to the United States court for China from any final judg¬ 
ment of the consular courts of the United States in Korea so long 
as the rights of extraterritoriality shall obtain in favor of the United 
States.” The United States Court for China is to exercise super¬ 
visory control over the discharge by consuls and vice-consuls of the 
duties prescribed by the laws of the United States relating to the 
estates of decedents in China. It also provides that “that appeals 
shall lie from all judgments or decrees of said court to the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals of the ninth judicial circuit, and 
thence appeals and writs of error may be taken from the judgments 
or decrees of the said circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court 
of the United States in the same class of cases as those in which 
appeals and writs of error are permitted to judgments of said court 
of appeals in cases coming from district and circuit courts of the 
United States;” and that “said appeals or writs of error shall be 
regulated by the procedure governing appeals within the United 
States from the district courts to the circuit courts of appeal, and 
from the circuit courts of appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
United States, respectively, so far as the same shall be applicable; 
and said courts are hereby empowered to hear and determine appeals 
and writs of error so taken.”The jurisdiction of said United States 
court, both original and on appeal, in civil and criminal matters, 
and also the jurisdiction of the consular courts in China, is in all 
cases to be exercised in conformity with said treaties and the laws 
of the United States now in force in reference to the American con¬ 
sular courts in China, and all judgments and decisions of said con¬ 
sular courts, and all decisions, judgments, and decrees of said 
United States Court, must be enforced in accordance with said 
treaties and laws; but in all such cases when such laws are deficient 
in the provisions necessary to give jurisdiction or to furnish suitable 
remedies, the common law and the laws as established by the deci¬ 
sions of the courts of the United States are to be applied by said 
court in its decisions and are to govern the same subject to the 
terms of any treaties between the United States and China.®^ The 

67 Section 2. 

68 Section 3. 

69 Section 5. 


175 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 

procedure of the said court is to be in accordance, so far as practica¬ 
ble, with the existing procedure prescribed for consular courts in 
China in accordance with the Revised Statutes of the United States; 
provided, however, that the judge of the said United States Court 
for China is to have authority from time to time to modify and 
supplement said rules of procedure.®*^ Further, it provides that the 
provisions of Sections 4106 and 4107 of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States allowing consuls in certain cases to summon 
associates shall have no application to said court. There are a 
district attorney, a marshal, and a clerk in the said court, with 
authority possessed by the corresponding officers of the district 
courts in the United States as far as may be consistent with the 
conditions of the laws of the United States and said treaties; and 
the judge of said court and the district attorney, who must be law¬ 
yers of good standing and experience, and the marshal and the 
clerk are to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate.®^ The tenure of office of the judge of 
said court is ten years, unless sooner removed by the President for 
cause; and the tenure of office of the other officials of the court is 
at the pleasure of the President.®^ The marshal and the clerk of said 
court are to be required to furnish bond for the faithful performance 
of their duties, in sums and with sureties to be fixed and approved 
by the judge of the court. 

In the earlier stages of its work, the court was confronted with 
many of the difficulties which for years had hampered the adminis¬ 
tration of American law in China. Such difficulties as actually 
existed must be attributed very largely, if not entirely, to the 
American dual system of federal and state laws. The laws extended 
by Congress to China have always been assumed to be the general 
laws of the United States and not those of any particular state. 
The great difficulty with which the United States Court for China 
have had to contend is the application of this general law to condi¬ 
tions in China. Thus the laws of the various states were not taken 
into consideration in a judicial decision. In 1907 a criminal case 
arose in the United States Court for China which was destined to 
have far-reaching effects upon the administration of American law 

Section 5. 

Section 6. 

Section 7. 

Section 8. 


176 


Treaty Ports in China 

in China. In this case the defendant was charged with having ob¬ 
tained money under false pretenses. His counsel set up the defense 
that the United States Court for China was without jurisdiction 
to try him for such alleged crime because the act of obtaining money 
or goods by false pretenses was not an offense at common law, and 
was not then made a crime by the laws of the United States. It 
was thus not then, and is not now, made a crime by any statute 
of the United States or the Criminal Code of the United States in 
force since January i, 1910, although it is a criminal offense by 
statute in every state in the Union. This case was taken on appeal 
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and some extremely 
interesting results followed. The Court of Appeals in stating its 
opinion said:^"* 

The United States Court for China was created by Act, June 30, 1906, 
c. 3934 , 34 Stat. pt. i, p. 814 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 797), and by 
Section i of that Act was given “exclusive jurisdiction in all cases and judicial 
proceedings whereof jurisdiction may now be exercised by United States 
Consuls and Ministers by law and by virtue of treaties between the United 
States and China, except in so far as the said jurisdiction is qualified by 
Section 2 of this Act.” Section 4 of the same Act provides: 

The jurisdiction of said United States Court, both original and on appeal, 
in civil and criminal matters, and also the jurisdiction of the Consular 
Courts in China, shall in all cases be exercised in conformity with said treaties 
and the laws of the United States now in force in reference to the American 
Consular Courts in China, and all judgments and decisions of said Consular 
Courts, and all decisions, judgments, and decrees of the United States Court, 
shall be enforced in accordance with said treaties and laws. But in all such 
cases when such laws are deficient in the provisions necessary to give juris¬ 
diction or to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law as estab¬ 
lished by the decisions of the courts of the United States shall be applied by 
said court in its decisions and shall govern the same subject to the terms of 
any treaties between the United States and China. 

The law in relation to the jurisdiction of Consular Courts at the date of 
the passage of the Act creating the United States Court for China is found in 
Section 4086 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2769), and is 
as follows: 

Jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters shall in all cases, be exercised 
and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, which are 

156 Federal Reporter, 759-765; North-China Herald, July 5, 1907; The Judicial 
Code of the United States in force January i, 1912, p. 82; The Criminal Code of the 
United States in force January i, 1910. 


177 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 

hereby, so far as is necessary to execute such treaties, respectively, and so far 
as they are suitable to carry the same into effect, extended over all citizens 
of the United States in those countries, and over all others to the extent that 
the terms of the treaties, respectively, justify or require. But in all cases 
where such laws are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provi¬ 
sions necessary to furnish suitable remedies, the common law and the law of 
equity and admiralty shall be extended in like manner over citizens and others 
in those countries. 

The United States, by its treaty with China, acquired extraterritorial 
jurisdiction in civil controversies between its citizens residing in China, and 
in respect to all crimes committed by its citizens residing there, and Congress, 
in the statutes above referred to, provided tribunals to exercise such juris¬ 
diction, “in conformity with the laws of the United States,” and when these 
laws “are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions neces¬ 
sary to furnish suitable remedies,” then in accordance with the common law. 
The object of the treaty and the intention of Congress, in creating the United 
States Court for China, in so far as that court is given criminal jurisdiction, 
was to throw around American citizens residing or sojourning in China, and 
there charged with crime, the beneficent principles of the laws of the United 
States relating to the trial of persons charged with crime—the rules of evi¬ 
dence, the presumption of innocence, the degree of proof necessary to convict, 
the right of the accused to be confronted with witnesses against him, exemp¬ 
tion from being compelled to incriminate himself, etc. But, while securing to 
them these privileges, the statute at the same time, made them subject to 
punishment for acts made criminal by any law of the United States, or for 
acts recognized as crimes under the common law. 

This brings us to the consideration of the question whether obtaining 
money or goods by false pretenses is an offense which may be thus punished, 
if committed by an American citizen in China. This particular kind of 
cheating was not a crime under the ancient common law. It was first so 
declared in the year 1757 by Statute 30, Geo. II, Chapter 24. Bishop on 
Criminal Law (Third Edition) Volume 2, Section 392. “Under this statute 
for the first time the crime ceased to depend on the particular kind of pretense 
used; the statute being couched in terms broad enough to include the use of 
any false pretense whatever, although, as will appear later, the judges, in 
construing the statute, excepted certain classes of pretenses from it. It was 
this statute that created the crime now commonly known as obtaining goods 
under false pretenses. Several statutes have been enacted in England since 
the Statute of 30 Geo. II to supply defects found therein, but its general pro¬ 
visions, in so far as they defined the crime, remain unchanged.” 19 Cyc. 387. 

If the Statute of 30 Geo. II, and those amendatory of it, which were in 
force at the date of the separation of the American colonies from the mother 


178 


Treaty Ports in China 

country, are to be considered as a part of the common law to which Congress 
referred in the enactment above quoted, the jurisdiction of the court over the 
offense of obtaining money under false pretenses would be undoubted; and 
we are of opinion that in making the common law applicable to offenses com¬ 
mitted by American citizens in China, and the other countries with which 
we have similar treaties. Congress had reference to the common law in force 
in the several American colonies at the date of the separation from the mother 
country, and this included not only the ancient common law, the lex non 
scripta, but also statutes which had theretofore been passed amendatory of 
or in aid of the common law. Thus Mr. Bishop, in his work on Criminal Law 
(Section 155): says. 

The rule is familiar to the legal profession that colonists to an uninhabited 
country carry with them the laws of their mother country, as far as applicable 
to their new situation and circumstances; and that, in their new home, the 
laws thus taken with them, whether in the mother country they were written 
or unwritten, are regarded as unwritten, or common law. 

And in the second edition of Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, (page 25), 
the author of that great work says: 

The colonies also had legislatures of their own, by which laws had been 
passed which were in force at the time of the separation, and which remained 
unaffected thereby. When therefore they emerged from the colonial condi¬ 
tion into that of independence, the laws which governed them consisted: 
First, of the common law of England, so far as they had tacitly adopted it as 
suited to their condition, second, of the statutes of England or of Great 
Britain, amendatory of the common law, which they had in like manner 
adopted; and third, of the colonial statutes. The first and second constituted 
the American common law, and by this in great part are rights adjudged and 
wrongs redressed in the American states to this day. 

But in holding that the court below had jurisdiction of the information 
upon which the defendant was tried, it is not necessary for us to rest our 
decision entirely upon the proposition that obtaining money or goods under 
false pretenses is an offense at common law, within the meaning of the statute 
conferring jurisdiction upon the United States Court for China, as we are 
clearly of opinion that such as act is a crime under the laws of the United 
States. 

It is true, there is no general statute applicable to every state in the Union, 
making this an offense against the United States; nor could there be, in view 
of the fact that under our system of government the right to punish for such 
acts committed within the political jurisdiction of the state is reserved to the 
several states. But in legislating for territory over which the United States 
exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, Congress has made the act of 
obtaining money under false pretenses a crime. Thus, in Section 54 of Title i, 


179 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 

Part I, of the Act passed March 3, 1899 (Chapter 429, 30 Statute 1260), 
entitled, “an act to define and punish crimes in the district of Alaska and to 
provide a code of criminal procedure for such district,” Congress has enacted 
that obtaining money or property from another by any false pretense shall 
constitute a crime, subjecting the offender to punishment by imprisonment 
in the penitentiary not less than one year nor more than five years. So, also, 
under Section 842 of the Act of March 3, 1901, entitled “an act to establish 
a code of law for the District of Columbia,” obtaining from any person any¬ 
thing of value by means of false pretenses is made a crime, and, where the 
value of the property so secured is $35 or upwards, subjects him to imprison¬ 
ment not less than one year nor more than three years; or if less than that 
sum, to a fine not more than $200, or imprisonment for not more than six 
months, or both. Chapter 834, 31 Statute 1326. 

In addition to these statutes. Section 2 of the Act of July 7, 1898 (Chapter 
576, 30 Stat. 717; U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3652), which is, in substance, a 
reenactment of Section 5391, Revised Statutes, provides: 

That when any offense is committed in any place, jurisdiction over which 
has been retained by the United States or ceded to it by a state, or which has 
been purchased with the consent of a state for the erection of a fort, magazine, 
arsenal, dockyard or other needful building or structure, the punishment for 
which offense is not provided for by any law of the United States, the person 
committing such offense shall, upon conviction in a circuit or district court 
of the United States for the district in which the offense was committed, be 
liable to and receive the same punishment as the laws of the state in which 
such place is situated now provide for the like offense when committed within 
the jurisdiction of such state, and the said courts are hereby vested with 
jurisdiction for such purposes; and no subsequent repeal of any such state 
law shall affect any such prosecution. 

Under this statute, any act committed in any place under the jurisdiction 
of the United States, if made an offense by the laws of the state in which such 
place is situated, when committed elsewhere in the state, is an offense against 
the United States, and punishable as in the state law provided. Sharon v. 
Hill (C. C.) 24 Fed. 731; U. S. v. Wright, Fed. Cas. No. 16. 774; U. S. v. 
Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48-53, 14 Sup. Ct. 746, 38 L. Ed. 631. 

At the date of the passage of the Act of July 7, 1898, just quoted, the act 
of obtaining money or goods by false pretenses was made a crime by the laws 
of most of the states of the Union, and is, therefore, under this statute, also 
made a crime against the United States, in all places over which the United 
States exercises exclusive legislative jurisdiction, within the several states, 
having laws provided for the punishment of such an act as a crime. 

In view of the legislation of Congress to which we have referred (the acts 
relating to Alaska and the District of Columbia, and the statute of July 7, 


i 8 o Treaty Ports in China 

1898), our conclusion is that obtaining money or goods under false pretenses 
is an offense against the laws of the United States, within the meaning of the 
statute conferring jurisdiction upon the United States Court for China, and 
that an American citizen guilty of the commission of such an act in China is 
subject to trial and punishment therefor by that court. 

§ 5. The Mixed Courts at Shanghai, 

At the conference of the ministers to China in 1879, the subject 
of judicial proceedings in mixed cases was very ably presented by 
George F. Seward, the American Minister at Peking. From the 
special reports of consuls, it was found that in actual practice the 
settlement of a claim against a Chinese debtor by resorting to a 
Chinese court was next to impossible, and that the Chinese law 
was deficient in remedies. An authority on Consular Jurisdiction 
in the Orient wrote:®® 

In consequence, when a friendly settlement out of court could not be 
brought about, the consul was almost unavoidably obliged to undertake to 
prescribe to the Chinese magistrate what judgment to pronounce. Thus, 
although the treaties required that the decision be made by the judge of the 
defendant’s nationality, a form of mixed court was being developed by usage. 
In fact, there was a tendency on the part of some of the foreign ministers them¬ 
selves to favor the adoption of a system of mixed courts. The success of the 
international tribunals in Egypt was held forth as an example of what might 
be done in China. But the American Minister and his British colleague were 
disinclined toward this proposition for the reason that conditions in China 
differed so essentially from those in Egypt as to offer no guarantee of success. 
Egypt was comparatively a small country, foreign interests were well cen¬ 
tralized and the nature and methods of European jurisprudence were better 
known to the officials of the Egyptian Government. In China the distances 
between the open ports were very great, the foreign residents were more 
widely segregated from the native population; and the governing classes in 
China had not yet acquainted themselves with western law and judicial 
practice. A system of mixed courts at that time and for China as a whole was 
therefore deemed impracticable. 

® 5 It is believed that Mixed Courts are at first suggested to be established in all the 
treaty ports. But as a matter of fact, the Mixed Courts of the Shanghai International 
Settlement and that of the Shanghai French Concession are the only tribunals of that 
kind in existence. Although it is provided in the Kulangsu Land Regulations of 
January 10, 1902, for the establishment of a court on the lines of the Mixed Court at 
Shanghai, yet as far as I can find none has ever been established in the port. (See 
Supra, Chapter 6, Section 6, Regulation 12.) 

®«F. E. Hinckley, American Consular Jurisdiction in the Orient, p. 159. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports i 8 i 

Furthermore, Mr. Seward, having in mind the policy initiated by 
Mr. Burlingame,®^ was persuaded of the advisability of favoring the 
development of a national system of jurisprudence for China upon 
western principles of law; and with that ultimate end in view, while 
proposing that the rule of the treaties requiring trial and judgment 
by the court of the defendant should be strictly adhered to, he 
recommended that the conference express a desire to the Tsungli 
Yamen for the following improvements: (i) That Chinese courts 
be designated in which complaints of foreigners could be heard and 
determined; (2) that the right of the foreigner to appear in these 
courts in person and with witnesses be secured, and that compulsory 
process to compel the attendance of native witnesses be allowed; 
(3) that the consul of the complainant be entitled to be present in 
court to assist in placing the evidence before it; (4) that records 
of all the proceedings, evidence, opinions and judgment be kept.®® 
An additional memorandum upon the Chinese or so-called Mixed 
Court at Shanghai was submitted to the conference.®® Mr. Seward’s 
entire report was unanimously adopted and a joint note of the 
ministers communicating their views was sent to the Tsungli 
Yamen on November 10, 1879.^® In reply the Chinese authorities 
expressed themselves conservatively, and declined to take immediate 
steps for the betterment of the Chinese courts.^^ Yet in the course 
of years the lines of improvement suggested in the conference of 
1879 have been followed, and the unanimous agreement of the 
ministers to uphold strictly the rule of the treaties, requiring that 
in mixed cases a Chinese defendant be tried by a Chinese judge, the 

Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of America and other 
Powers, since July 4, 1776, edited by John H. Haswell (1889), p. 1257. In his notes 
to the Treaties of the United States, Mr. Bancroft Davis said: “On the 15th of June, 
1864, Burlingame instructed the Consul-General at Shanghai respecting ‘the extent 
of the rights and duties of American citizens under the Treaty, and the regulations 
made in pursuance thereof’ (3 Diplomatic Correspondence, 1864, 426), and he added, 
T have submitted the above letter to the British, French, and Russian Ministers, and 
they authorize me to inform you they entirely approve its views and policy.’ {Ibid., 
430.) Burlingame described the policy he was prescribing as ‘an effort to substitute 
fair diplomatic action in China for force.’ {Ibid., 430.) When this important action 
was communicated to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, he wrote, ‘It is approved with 
much commendation’.” 

6® United States Foreign Relations, 1880, pp. 140, 143, 145-157. 

Ibid., 1880, pp. 157-162. 

^0 Ibid., 1880, pp. 165-167. 

Ibid., 1880, pp. 189-191, 223-235. 


182 Treaty Ports in China 

foreign consul being restricted to assisting in bringing evidence 
before the magistrate and having no right to interfere with his 
decision in the case, undoubtedly contributed much to the preserva¬ 
tion and development of the jurisdiction of China in respect to the 
claims of foreigners.^^ 

The Mixed Court of the International Settlement at Shanghai 
is the best of its type in the territorial jurisdiction of China. Its 
history goes back to 1866, when Mr. Alabaster, the British Vice- 
consul at Shanghai, drew up a set of rules which was adopted by the 
Taotai and the consular body. 

The Mixed Court at Shanghai might be styled, with more exact¬ 
ness, the Chinese court for the foreign settlements at Shanghai. 
Prior to its institution, Chinese offenders, arrested by the police of 
the English and American settlements, were sent by the English 
or the American Consul to the Chinese district magistrate, with a 
written statement of the offense charged. Criminal charges other 
than those brought by the police and all civil complaints were laid 
before the Taotai or magistrate by the consul concerned, by letter, 
and were decided by the native official, usually after an ex parte 
examination of the accused without the appearance of his accuser. 
This condition of things proved to be intolerable, and the consular 
body at Shanghai, in 1864, moved for a reform. It seemed to the 
consuls of that time that it was desirable to secure: (i) The appoint¬ 
ment of a native officer to act as magistrate of first instance in all 
minor complaints, civil and criminal, brought by aliens against 
Chinese at the port, including cases reported by the foreign police; 

(2) recognition of the right to delegate foreign officers to sit with the 
native magistrate so appointed in order to watch the proceedings, 
and to assist the plaintiffs in the presentation of their complaints; 

(3) an understanding with the intendant of circuit, under which he 
would hear graver matters personally, assisted by the chief consular 
officer of the alien concerned, and also appeals from the decision of 
the magistrate of the Mixed Court. 

These proposals in the form of rules formulated by Sir Harry 
Parkes and Mr. George F. Seward, acting as a committee of the 
consular body, were laid before the intendant of circuit, who ap¬ 
proved them, and appointed a wei-yuen, or deputy, to act as magis- 

7272 British and Foreign State Papers, 1015-31; Hinckley, American Consular 
Jurisdiction in the Orient, p. 160. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 183 

trate. Various attempts were made during the ensuing three or 
four years to place the court upon a more satisfactory basis, and 
more particularly to secure for it the recognition of the Peking 
Government. These efforts after much diplomatic correspondence, 
culminated in the establishment of the regulations for the Mixed 
Court which were approved by the foreign legations at Peking in 
1868. These regulations provided that an officer of the rank of sub¬ 
prefect should be deputed to reside within the settlement, who 
should have jurisdiction of all cases, criminal and civil, in which 
Chinese were concerned as defendants, saving grave criminal 
offenses, which were to be dealt with by the magistrate of the dis¬ 
trict; and that, when a foreigner was concerned, an appeal might 
be taken to the Taotai, if the alien was dissatisfied with the judg¬ 
ment of the court of first instance. In practice, however, criminal 
cases of less importance than those contemplated by the rules, par¬ 
ticularly those in which foreigners were not directly concerned, 
were referred to the district magistrate; and many important civil 
cases were heard by the Taotai, assisted by the mixed court magis¬ 
trate and sometimes by the latter alone. 

On April 20, 1869, Mr. W. H. Medhurst, British Consul at Shang¬ 
hai, published the rules for the Mixed Court of the International 
Settlement at Shanghai, acting under the instructions from the 
British Minister at Peking. By the provisions of these regulations 
for the Mixed Court, the magistrate of this court is given power to 
decide all civil and commercial suits between Chinese residents 
within the settlements, and also between Chinese and foreign resi¬ 
dents, in cases where Chinese are defendants, by Chinese law; and 
he is to be authorized to examine Chinese judicially, to detain them 
in custody, and to punish them by putting them in the cangue, by 
flogging, and other minor punishments (Rule I). Where a for¬ 
eigner is concerned in a cause to be tried, a consul or his deputy shall 
sit with the sub-prefect at the trial, but where Chinese only are 
concerned the sub-prefect shall adjudicate independently—the 
consuls shall not interfere (Rule 2). Where a defendant is a native 
in foreign employ, the sub-prefect will first communicate particulars 
to the consul of the nationality concerned, who will be bound to 
place the parties before the court without attempting to screen or 
conceal them; a consul or his deputy may attend the hearing, but 
he shall not interfere if no foreign interest is involved; and the 


184 Treaty Ports in China 

servants of non-trading consuls shall not be arrested unless with 
the sanction of their masters (Rule 3). In cases where Chinese sub¬ 
jects are charged with grave offenses punishable by death and the 
various degrees of banishment, where, by Chinese law, a local officer 
with an independent seal would send up the case for revision by the 
provincial judge, who would submit it to the high authorities, to be 
by them referred to the Board of Punishment, it will still be for the 
district magistrate of Shanghai to take action (Rule 4). A Chinese 
criminal escaping to the foreign settlements can be summarily 
arrested by the sub-prefect without warrant from the district magis¬ 
trate or aid from the municipal police (Rule 5). Suits between na¬ 
tives and foreigners shall be decided equitably and impartially, and 
in accordance with treaties; the treaty provision is to be followed in 
cases where the foreigner has a consul, but when the foreigner has 
no consul, the sub-prefect, sitting with a foreign consular assessor, 
shall try the case, submitting the decision for the consideration of 
the Taotai; and should either party to the case be dissatisfied with 
the sub-prefect’s decision, application for a new trial must be made to 
the Taotai or to the proper consul (Rule 6). Foreigners who may 
be charged with any offense, if represented by consuls on the spot, 
shall be dealt with by them as the treaties provide, but unrepre¬ 
sented foreign offenders will be tried and sentenced by the sub¬ 
prefect, the finding being submitted for the Taotai’s approval, who 
will consult with some Treaty Power consul on the subject; and 
that where the offenders are Chinese, the sub-prefect will inflict 
the proper legal punishment (Rule 7). The necessary staff of 
translators, linguists, writers, and servants, will be engaged by the 
sub-prefect, as also a foreigner or two for general purposes, by 
whom, also, foreign offenders having no consul, will be brought to 
trial or kept in custody when necessary; all expenses are to be 
drawn from the Taotai monthly; and acts of extortion or any 
annoyance on the part of any of the employers shall be severely 
punished (Rule 8). The sub-prefect shall keep a daily certified 
record of arrests made and cases tried, giving the names of the 
parties arrested and recording the grounds of decision in each case; 
this shall be open to the inspection of the superior authorities; and 
should the sub-prefect be inefficient or notorious he will be de¬ 
nounced and removed from office, another being appointed in his 
place (Rule 9). When the sub-prefect has tried a case, should it 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 185 

be ascertained that plaintiff’s charge was false or exaggerated, said 
plaintiff, whether native or foreigner, shall, on conviction, be 
mulcted by the sub-prefect in accordance with the rules which will 
be jointly drawn up by the sub-prefect and consuls, and submitted 
for the Taotai’s approval; and in the interests of justice, native 
and foreigner must in this respect be treated with perfect impar¬ 
tiality (Rule 10) 

Besides the Mixed Court of the International Settlement at 
Shanghai, there is another Mixed Court at the same port. This 
Mixed Court of the French concession, unlike the other Mixed 
Court, has only one assessor, who is always a French consular officer. 
On June 10, 1902, certain rules were agreed upon for defining the 
respective jurisdiction of these Mixed Courts of the International 
and French Settlements. It provides that (Rule i) in all civil cases 
between Chinese, the plaintiff will follow the defendant, and will 
sue him before the Mixed Court of the defendant’s residence; that 
(Rule 2) in all criminal cases of Chinese against Chinese, where for¬ 
eigners are not concerned, and in all police cases against Chinese 
residents in the Settlements, the Mixed Court of the Settlement in 
which the crime or contravention has been committed is alone com¬ 
petent; that (Rule 3) if the plaintiff is a foreigner (not of French 
nationality) and the Chinese defendant is a resident of the Inter¬ 
national Settlement, he is to be sued before the Mixed Court of 
the International Settlement; that if the plaintiff is French and 
the Chinese defendant is a resident of the French Settlement, he is 
to be sued before the Mixed Court of the French Settlement; that 
if the plaintiff is a foreigner (not of French nationality) and the 
Chinese defendant is a resident of the French Settlement, the latter 
shall be sued before the Mixed Court of the International Settle¬ 
ment, whose warrant or summons for his appearance, after counter- 
signature by the French Consul-General, will be executed or served 
by the runners of the International Mixed Court, with the assistance 
of the police of the French Settlement, without previous hearing 
in the Mixed Court of the French Settlement; that if the plaintiff 
is French and the Chinese defendant is a resident of the Inter¬ 
national Settlement, the latter shall be sued before the Mixed Court 
of the French Settlement, whose warrant or summons for his appear¬ 
ance, after countersignature by the senior consul, will be executed 

73 United States Foreign Relations, 1880, pp. 162-163. 


186 Treaty Ports in China 

or served by the runners of the French Mixed Court, with the 
assistance of the police of the International Settlement, without a 
previous hearing in the Mixed Court of the International Settle¬ 
ment; and finally that (Rule 4) in criminal cases where a foreigner 
(not of French nationality) is complainant, the Mixed Court of the 
International Settlement is competent; that if a Frenchman is 
complainant, the Mixed Court of the French Settlement is com¬ 
petent.^^ 

In 1904 amendments to the Rules for the Mixed Court of the 
International Settlement at Shanghai were suggested by the diplo¬ 
matic corps at Peking to the Board of Foreign Affairs. The amend¬ 
ments accompanied a joint note of December 22, 1904, to Prince 
Ch’ing.^® The Prince immediately instructed the superintendent 
of trade for the south to order the Shanghai Taotai to make a thor¬ 
ough investigation of the matter; and on November 28, 1905, the 
superintendent made a report in which several changes in the pro¬ 
posed amendments were suggested. The diplomatic corps then 
offered certain counter-amendments, and later the Nanking Viceroy 
made a new draft. In a letter of July 3, 1906, to Mr. Rockhill, the 
American Minister at Peking, Prince Ch’ing, commending the 
Viceroy’s proposals as being calculated to promote the orderly gov¬ 
ernment of the settlement, suggested that they be put in force for 
a period of two years, after which, if their operation was attended 
with any difficulty, they might be modified. On August 4, 1906, 
Prince Gh’ing made a similar communication to the diplomatic 
corps. This body, however, on the 14th of the same month, pre¬ 
sented a counter-draft; and as this did not lead to an agreement, 
the previous condition of things has remained unchanged.^® 

After the outbreak of the Revolution of October 10, 1911, the 
Taotai at Shanghai being no longer recognized by the de facto gov¬ 
ernment, the consular body, assuming full control there, posted up, 
on November ii, 1911, in front of the International Mixed Court, 
a proclamation for the maintenance of the “interests of the Settle¬ 
ments,” which declared: 

Parliamentary Papers, China, No. 2, (1903). 

U. S. Foreign Relations, 1906, Part I, pp. 372-373. 

76 United States Foreign Relations, 1906, Part I, pp. 373-407; North-China Daily 
News, January 23-24, 1906; North-China Herald, February 2, 1906. 

'^'^North-China Herald, November 18, 1911. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 187 

As the Chinese merchants and residents in the Settlements are very great 
in number, their cases of litigation, whether civil or criminal, have been 
disposed of by a specially inaugurated Mixed Court. Now, for the safe¬ 
guarding of the public peace of the settlement, the most essentially important 
step would be to ensure the continuation of the functions exercised by the 
Mixed Court and its gaol. Therefore the consular officials of the Treaty 
Powers issue this proclamation for the information of both the Chinese and 
foreign merchants and peoples that the consuls of the powers, after due 
consideration of the aspect and position of affairs, and by the rights and 
power vested in them in their official capacity, hereby recognize temporarily 
the three officials, Kuan Chun, Wang Chia-hsi and Nih Tsung-hsi, who have 
already performed duties of the Mixed Court, as magistrates of the Mixed 
Court, to continue their functions in an amicable manner by following and 
accompanying the foreign Assessors appointed by the Consuls. They also 
permit the police of the foreign Municipal Councils of the Settlements of 
Shanghai to take charge of the gaol of the Mixed Courts, as well as to execute 
energetically the summonses and warrants issued by the Mixed Courts and 
already signed and sealed by the consuls concerned, in connection with civil 
and criminal cases; and the orders which have been customarily signed and 
sealed by the assessors interested; and also to assist in the upholding of the 
legitimate power of the court to the best of their ability. 

Thus we proclaim for the information of the Chinese merchants and resi¬ 
dents in the Settlements, that although the general position in Shanghai at 
present is not yet settled, those good people, who pursue their business peace¬ 
fully and who have enjoyed all along special privileges of the Settlements, 
will still not suffer the least loss. If there are lawless miscreants, threatening 
to use force to you, vainly thinking to interfere with your business, . 
they shall be arrested and punished most severely, without the least leniency 
or pardon . 

On December 22, 1911, Mr. D. Siffert, the senior consul at Shang¬ 
hai, reported to Sir J. Jordan, Dean of the Diplomatic Corps at 
Peking, several measures adopted by the consular body to secure 
the proper working of the Mixed Court of the International Settle¬ 
ment “in the absence of any established form of Chinese Govern¬ 
ment.” By these measures the three magistrates were confirmed in 
the exercise of their functions, under the guidance of and in concert 
with the foreign assessors; and the prisons attached to the court 
were placed in charge of the municipal police, to whom was also 
committed the service of summonses and warrants. Inquests were 
to be held by the Mixed Court magistrate and a foreign assessor; 
all criminal offenses committed in the settlement were to be dealt 


188 Treaty Ports in China 

with by the Mixed Court, including those deserving more than five 
years’ imprisonment; the Municipal Council were to supervise the 
financial administration of the Mixed Court on behalf of the con¬ 
sular body, and receive the proceeds of all fines and pay all expenses 
and salaries, except that of the magistrate’s, as the latter’s salary 
was to be paid by the consular body out of the Chinese Govern¬ 
ment’s funds then in the hands of the senior consul; foreign asses¬ 
sors were to watch the hearing of purely Chinese civil cases.'^® 

The serious disturbance of the situation at Shanghai by the Revo¬ 
lution is very vividly pictured by Mr. E. D. Fraser, the British 
Consul-general, in a note, of February lo, 1912, to Sir J. Jordan, 
the British Minister at Peking, as follows;^® 

Soon after the revolution started Wu Ting-fang notified us of the officers 
of the new administration. They included a military governor of the Shang¬ 
hai army, but no officer to replace the Taotai. On the 19th of November, 
this governor wrote to the senior consul that he had appointed a Mr. Hsu, 
formerly interpreter to the Italian lawyer Musso, and a Mr. Tsai as commis¬ 
sioners for international affairs, and these two tried to interfere in Mixed 
Court matters. On the i6th of January Mr. Wen Tsung-yao informed us 
that he was commissioner of trade and foreign affairs by appointment of the 
President, Sun; and in conversation he assured me that he was the only local 
authority thus duly appointed, and that Hsu had been warned off. Hsu, 
however, remained in the Yamen in the city of the self-appointed military 
governor, and recently sent a launch which seized a British cargo-boat loading 
ammunition for the Russian gun-boat Mandjour, at Hankow, on to a Japanese 
river steamer. Mr. Wen’s efforts to get the capture returned succeeded only 
after the lapse of a week, and I had privately to ask Mr. Wilkinson to move 
the President to have the powers and functions of the republican officers 
here put on a proper footing before even this success was attained. 

The various authorities have, however, no subordination, and no head to 
whom effective appeal can be made to redress wrongs, such as the holding to 
ransom of respectable native residents in the settlement. The military 
governor is quite superfluous, as the troops are under their own generals and 
the garrison under an ex-convict, while the Woosung Forts are a separate 
command. 

Money is raised by force subscription supplemented by contribution from 
abroad . 

The absence of any duly recognized native authority with whom we can 
hold official relations has naturally caused great inconvenience, especially in 

'^^Parliamentary Papers, China, No. 3 (1912), p. 138. 

79 Ihid., China, No. 3 (1912) pp. 201-202. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 189 

regard to the Mixed Court, and the transfer of land inside and outside the 
Settlement. 

At the end of November the military governor’s commissioner for foreign 
affairs suggested a system for the rendition of offenders, and the production 
of witnesses wanted in the Mixed Court and in revolutionary courts outside 
the Settlement, but the scruples of some members of the consular body pre¬ 
vented any arrangement being come to. 

The awkward position thus created gave the senior magistrate, Kuan, an 
excuse for applying for and accepting for himself and his two assistants 
appointment and seal at the hands of the new rulers; but this step he recalled 
at the instance of the consular body. 

More recently the question of appeals in civil cases heard in the Mixed 
Court has come up. The acting Italian Consul-General maintains that 
under his treaty which contains a provision identical with Article 17 of our 
Treaty of Tientsin, the only appeal is to himself assisted by Chinese authori¬ 
ties. Others have suggested the court of consuls, or the consul-general con¬ 
cerned with two others as assessors, or that the chairman of the Chinese 
Chamber of Commerce replace the Taotai; but none of these proposals meet 
the obvious difficulties, that no one can enforce a judgment on a party to a 
suit in an extraterritorial place except that party’s own national authority, 
and that the republicans are not likely to let their commissioner for foreign 
affairs be passed over in favor of the head of a concern semi-official at best. 
Litigants in the Mixed Court are not bound to surrender the right of appeal, 
and to accept a rehearing before several of its judges in lieu thereof. The 
result must be delay, if not injustice, until Mr. Wen is recognized as taking 
the Taotai’s place. 

As regards land the republicans do not object to the consular body’s 
arrangement within the Settlement, but beyond its limits they demand that 
deeds shall be stamped by their commissioner, who shall also decide as to 
the payment of sheng-ko, and of rates for land in excess of title-deed area. 

I do not think any of the persons immediately concerned would object 
to the republican proposals, provided they were sure that in the event of the 
present de facto administration being upset the validity of their titles under 
its officer’s seal could not be called in question. 

The only objection, and it is a serious objection, would arise were we to 
let the new Government appoint the magistrates of the Mixed Court, since 
native residents would thereby be laid open to enforced contributions to 
republican funds. There would, however, in my opinion not be any difficulty 
at present, at least in postponing any interference with the present provisional 
arrangement regarding that court with the improved working of which all 
classes of Chinese are content, or in preventing the reappearance of the abol¬ 
ished runners, who were and would be the instruments of irregular pressure 
on native residents. 


190 Treaty Ports in China 

Meanwhile, a circular was issued by Dr. Wu Ting-fang to all 
military governors, in which certain regulations to be observed in 
matters affecting the foreign settlements at Shanghai and other 
treaty ports were declared to be in force. By these regulations, pro¬ 
visions were made to the effect that the officers hitherto appointed 
by the Manchu dynasty to the Mixed Court at Shanghai were for 
the most part a degenerate lot who fostered rank corruption, and 
when the city seceded to the republican cause the court set up for 
itself, and did not come again under our control; that this sort of 
proceeding properly called for challenge, and some scheme by which 
the court’s authority could be wrested back was vitally imperative; 
and that the Bureau of Foreign Affairs at Shanghai should therefore 
make it its business to negotiate to that end with the foreign con¬ 
suls, subsequently selecting suitable officers to administer the court, 
and gradually work out a revision of its rules.®^ 

On January 9, 1913, the Government Gazette at Peking published 
certain Presidential Orders, which were designed to create uni¬ 
formity in the form of local government of China. By these orders 
the Chinese title of “the old intendants of circuit” or Taotais was 
altered, but the extent of their jurisdiction remaining the same as 
formerly, and in provinces where the post of Taotai was abolished 
the chief administrative authority might, if the circumstances 
required it, establish intendants of circuit under the new title.*^ 
All subdivisions of a province, whether prefectures, sub-prefectures, 
departments, or districts, were in future to be styled ‘districts’; 
the chief administrative authority in each was to be the district 
magistrate; and in every district where a Court of Justice had not 
yet been established, one to three assistant judges might be ap¬ 
pointed by the judiciary organization commission.The various 
titles previously existing for the commissioners of Foreign Affairs 
were altered to that of Foreign Affairs delegates of the Board of 
Foreign Affairs, and such delegates were only to be appointed at 
the more important treaty ports; the place of all commissioners of 
law or justice at present existing was to be taken by a judiciary or¬ 
ganization commission in each province; and the Foreign Office dele¬ 
gates, chiefs of judiciary organization commissions, controllers of 

Parliamentary Papers, China, No. 3 (1912) pp. 203-204. 

Regulation 4. 

82 Order No. 4. 

83 Order No. 5. 


Foreign Jurisdiction in Treaty Ports 191 

customs, and salt commissioners were to be appointed by the 
President on submission of names by the Premier at the re¬ 
quest of the head of the ministry concerned.®'^ Under a separate 
order it was directed that all the above orders should be carried 
out by March, 1913; and that they were provisional and should 
only remain in force until regulations were passed by the National 
Council.®® 

In a despatch. No. 592, dated March 16, 1917, from the Taliyuan 
(the National Supreme Court of the Chinese Republic) to the High 
Court of the Province of Kiangsi, there is a very interesting point 
affecting the validity or effectiveness of the decisions given by the 
Mixed Court of the International Settlement at Shanghai in cases 
of litigation which also concern the interior towns of China. As 
this is a point of law of the most importance, a full translation of 
the Taliyuan’s despatch®® is given below: 

In reply to your telegram forwarding a query from the Kiukiang District 
Court of Justice, which reads: “Can the same defendant for the same criminal 
offense, after having been tried and sentenced by the Shanghai Mixed Court, 
be prosecuted again by the procurator and tried again by this court as pro¬ 
vided in Article 6 of the Criminal Code? Please forward this and ask for 
explanation,” this court finds that the Shanghai Mixed Court system was 
based on the Yangkingpang Mixed Court Regulations promulgated in the 
7th year of Tung Chih (1869) and it was a special system resulting from the 
treaty terms. Since the said Mixed Court, in hearing and deciding civil and 
criminal cases, is supposed to be, in accordance with the treaty, exercising 
China’s judicial power in Chinese territory, that its decisions should not be 
regarded in the light of decisions of a foreign court is quite clear. However, 
since the year Hsin Hai (1911), the said court has been under the control of 
the Consular Body on our behalf, and since the laws quoted and applied as 
authorities at the said court have also not been what was stipulated in the 
treaty, the effectiveness of the treaty in question has therefore been stultified 
and suspended owing to obstacles in practice. As such obstacles in practice 
have never been formally recognized by the Chinese Government as valid in 
our international intercourse, then it is equally clear that its decisions arrived 
at in this manner can certainly not be regarded as decisions given by a Chinese 
Court in the sense as provided in the treaty. In the same way, all decisions 
rendered by any office which does not exercise judicial power in the eye of 
the Chinese law, or by any individual in the same position, cannot be accepted 

Order No. 6. 

Parliamentary Papers, China, No. i (1914) PP- 

^^North-China Herald, March 31, 1917. 


192 Treaty Ports in China 

as effective in law, although that office or that individual may actually try 
and decide lawsuits. 

Therefore, in respect of any case decided by the Mixed Court, if also under 
the jurisdiction of a court at another place, the rule that a single case should 
not be twice accepted for trial may not apply. Although it would be out of 
the question to apply Article 6, stipulating disregard of a decision by a court 
in a foreign country, to such a case, yet, whenever the defendant has not yet 
received any sentence in accordance with our law, the procurator in whose 
jurisdiction the defendant lives should certainly be permitted to prosecute 
him as demanded by law. This court gives this ruling in order to maintain 
our judicial power for the benefit of all. Please take note and act accordingly. 


Chapter VIII 


Conclusion 

On the whole, the development of the treaty ports has been an 
interesting part of the diplomatic history of China. It has marked 
step by step the advance of Occidental progressiveness as against 
Oriental conservatism. In 1842, Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo, 
and Shanghai, the premier five, were opened as treaty ports. The 
whole gamut of human aspiration, success and failure has been run 
through in these five alone. Of them all, Shanghai alone has been 
constantly expanding. Canton is not what it once was—the great 
port of China. The tea trade of Foochow has declined. Amoy has 
preserved its importance, but progress there has been extremely 
slow. Ningpo by all foreigners except the shipowner is almost 
abandoned. Of the five additional ports opened in 1858, Taiwan 
is now Japanese, while Newchwang, Chefoo, Kiungchow and Swatow 
have never been much more than ‘one-horse places’. Of those 
opened since i860 Hankow and Tientsin are the only important 
ports, where advancement has been rapid. Of the rest, some are 
promising, but the future of most of them is doubtful. 

Of late years the tendency of the alien settlers has been towards 
separate concessions. In Shanghai, an attempt has been made to 
concentrate, but it has embraced only two settlements, now known 
as the International Settlement, as the French have not cared to 
combine. But in Tientsin, Hankow, and other treaty ports the 
tendency has been towards separation. The British, French, 
German, and Japanese have each their plot of land at Tientsin, 
while at Hankow the same four are adjoined by Russia. By their 
treaty after the China-Japan War, the Japanese likewise acquired 
strips at Newchang, Hangchow, Soochow, and other treaty ports. 

The cause of the establishment of separate concessions is national 
jealousy and the desire for the national administration of each con¬ 
cession. Serious difficulties, it is true, usually attend such adminis¬ 
tration. But how shall we solve this problem, which is not only 
vital to the Chinese but also to all alien settlers in the treaty ports. 


194 


Treaty Ports in China 

The method that I am going to propose is not a new one, but is 
based on historical tendencies, which furnish the only sure founda¬ 
tion for the practical association of dififerent groups of human beings. 
This method, which depends upon the effective cooperation of the 
treaty powers and China, involves, on the one hand, the relinquish¬ 
ment by the powers of their “quasi-territorial jurisdiction,” and, on 
the other hand, the improvement by China of her system of juris¬ 
prudence so as to afford convincing assurances of an acceptable 
administration. 

The reasons for relinquishing extraterritorial jurisdiction are based 
on history. When any portion of oriental territory comes into the 
absolute possession of a European power, as when Hongkong was 
ceded to Great Britain in 1841, when the extreme eastern and 
western districts of Turkey passed under Russian and Austrian 
dominion in 1878, and when Madagascar was declared a French 
colony in 1896, the necessity of extraterritorial jurisdiction ceases, 
but the native law is not wholly supplanted. The actual conditions 
at the particular place must be taken into account, and perhaps the 
main part of the native law must be retained and preserved. In 
British India, the ancient and elaborate system of native law, 
mostly Mohammedan, exists side by side with the common law and 
the statutes, so far as these have been extended to India by Act of 
Parliament.^ Similarly, in Algiers, where extraterritorial jurisdiction 
ceased in 1830 when the Dey of Algiers surrendered the city to the 
commander of the French army; and although in 1870 the country 
became a department of France coequal with those in Europe, both 
the ancient Mohammedan law and law of French origin have con¬ 
tinued to be administered b)^ the French and the native courts.^ 

The one nation of the East which has so developed its system of 
jurisprudence, adapted and codified its laws, and improved its admin¬ 
istration of justice, as to convince the western states of the advis¬ 
ability of withdrawing their foreign jurisdiction, is Japan. In 1872, 
at the end of the stipulated period of fourteen years when nego¬ 
tiations for the revision of the treaties was to be undertaken at the 
desire of either party, the Japanese Emperor sent a large embassy, 
consisting of Prince Iwakura, who was Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
and the statesmen, Kido, Okuba, Ito, Yamagutsi and others, to 

^ Ilbert, The Government of India, p. 124. 

2 Leroy-Beaulieu, L’Algirie et la Tunisie, p. 266. 


Conclusion 


195 


America and Europe in order that they might study western insti¬ 
tutions and propose revision of the treaties. But the existing 
treaties, with their low customs tariff of five per cent., were con¬ 
sidered more advantageous by the western powers than any new 
treaties likely to be accepted by Japan. Moreover, while there were 
prospects of improving the Japanese system of jurisprudence by the 
adoption of western principles of law, they were still far from being 
ready to replace in practice. Therefore, the only course open to the 
Japanese leaders, who realized that their nation would suffer 
“oppression by treaty,” if the treaties of 1858 continued in force, was 
to develop the national institutions until they should command the 
respect of the western powers. This they accomplished through the 
ever increasing influence of merchants and others who were adopting 
western ways in the management of various enterprises; moreover, 
encouragement in the publication of newspapers was given and a 
national system of modern education instituted. In 1875 the 
Emperor convoked popular assemblies to which he confided respon¬ 
sibility for local government. Meanwhile the administration of the 
central government was remodelled. For this purpose the services 
of able and experienced officials under other governments were 
retained by Japan. With the assistance of foreign jurists the laws 
were revised and the courts reorganized. The new codes of criminal 
law and procedure followed the model of the codes of France, the 
codes of civil and commercial law and civil procedure, the codes of 
Germany. These codes came into operation gradually, but in 1899 
they had already acquired full force. In 1889 the Japanese consti¬ 
tution was promulgated.® There was obstinately some doubt among 
foreigners resident in Japan whether the Japanese Government 
would be able to secure to them under new treaties, and without the 
operation of consular courts, the same degree of protection they were 
enjoying under the treaties of 1858, and such apprehension was 
expressed by American and British residents in Japan even as late 
as the year preceding the inception of the new treaties for relin¬ 
quishing the foreign jurisdiction in the treaty ports of Japan.^ 
Notwithstanding the continued protests of Japan against the irreg- 

^ Parliamentary Papers, Japan, No, i (1894); Revue du droit international, 1893, 
P- 338; II Yale Law Journal, 296, 363; United States Foreign Relations, 1889, pp. 

535-538- 

< United States Foreign Relations, 1898, pp. 450-464. 


196 


Treaty Ports in China 


ularities and evils of the extraterritorial system, the European 
Governments had again in 1878 refused to consider revising the 
treaties. In that year, however, the United States made a treaty 
conditionally acknowledging the right of Japan over her own import 
tariffs. In 1886, Count Inouye called a conference of the Foreign 
Ministers at Tokio, and after deliberations prolonged into the fol¬ 
lowing year, finally ventured, upon his own responsibility, to con¬ 
cede that for all trials involving foreigners there should be a court 
made up of a majority of foreign judges sitting with the Japanese 
judges. The foreign ministers then demanded the right to choose 
these foreign judges and to prescribe what law and procedure and 
what manner of executing judgments should be followed. At this 
there was an outburst of general indignation among the Japanese 
and Count Inouye lost his leadership in politics. During the con¬ 
ference the American Government had shown a friendly attitude by 
concluding the treaty of extradition of April 29, 1886. In submitting 
it to the Senate, President Cleveland said that the treaty had been 
made partly because of the support which its conclusion would give 
to Japan in her efforts towards judicial autonomy and complete 
sovereignty.® The draft of a new treaty proposed by Count Okuma 
to Marquis of Salisbury, the British Secretary of State for Foreign 
Affairs, in 1889, contemplated that, for a period of five years from 
the conclusion of the treaty, consular jurisdiction should be terri¬ 
torially limited to the six foreign settlements, and to the open ports 
and other localities in which foreigners were permitted to reside; 
that outside of these localities Japan should have full jurisdiction, 
and that upon the expiration of the five-year period consular juris¬ 
diction and extraterritorial privileges were to cease throughout the 
territory of Japan, and the Japanese courts were thereafter to 
assume and exercise full jurisdiction. The proposed treaty was to 
contain rules for further determining the jurisdiction of the Japanese 
and British courts during the five-year period. In advance of the 
abolition of the consular courts, British subjects were to be per¬ 
mitted to submit to the jurisdiction of Japanese courts by filing 
written declarations of their desire at the British consulates. It was 
also proposed, in the draft of a diplomatic note, that Japan should 
appoint a number of foreign jurists to act in the capacity of judges 
in the Supreme Court of Japan. The British counter-draft of the 

5 Senate Ex. Journal., vol. xxv, p. 495. 


Conclusion 


197 


treaty and of the diplomatic note contained essentially the same 
provisions, but expressed them in entirely different language. Some 
months later Viscount Aoki, Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed 
Mr. Fraser, the British Minister at Tokio, that his Government 
desired the elimination from the proposed treaty of the provision 
for foreign judges in the Japanese tribunals, and, as a reason for this 
change, it was shown that the adoption of this measure would 
cause the vesting of rights and the growth of usages which it would 
be as difficult to modify as were the treaties of 1858, and that the 
judicial organization of Japan would, at the end of the five-year 
period, be of nearly a quarter of a century’s standing, with perfect 
independence and permanence under the guarantees of the consti¬ 
tution of 1889. Japan desired also that the proposed stipulations 
concerning the codification and promulgation of the laws of the 
Empire and the stipulations granting the right to acquire real estate 
should be withdrawn, and that a reservation in reference to the 
right of aliens to be placed upon a national footing should be intro¬ 
duced. The counter proposal by Lord Salisbury of June 5, 1890, 
consisted of a commercial treaty with a protocol annexed, providing 
for the cessation of jurisdiction at the expiration of a minimum 
period of five years upon condition that, before the jurisdiction 
should be discontinued, the Japanese codes, then being elaborated 
should have been in satisfactory operation for a continuous term of 
twelve months.® 

During the negotiations with Great Britain, whose interests pre¬ 
dominated in Japan, the Japanese government also made proposals 
of treaty revision to the United States, Russia, and Germany. The 
American Government, while disposed to be favorable to the pro¬ 
ject of revision, regarded the favorable action of Great Britain as 
essential to its success, and in reliance upon this friendly attitude 
of the United States, Japan made her chief efforts with Great 
Britain. Russia, it was believed, was willing to accept a treaty 
resembling the British draft of 1889, while Germany insisted upon 
its own form of convention. The principal causes of delay in the 
latter part of the negotiations appear to have been the postpone¬ 
ment of placing the new code fully in operation and the changes 
in the political leadership and the ministry. The British treaty, 
essentially following the draft of June 5, 1890, but including the 

^Parliamentary Papers, Japan, No. i (1894), pp. 1-24. 


Treaty Ports in China 


198 

provision for relinquishment of jurisdiction in the body of the treaty 
instead of in a protocol, was signed at London, July 16, 1894, by 
Lord Kimberley and Viscount Aoki. The American treaty was 
signed at Washington by Mr. Gresham, Secretary of State, and Mr. 
Shinichiro Kurino, the Japanese Minister, November 22, 1894. 
The example of Great Britain and the United States was soon fol¬ 
lowed by the other treaty powers. These new treaties came into 
force in 1899. On June 30, 1899, the Emperor issued a proclama¬ 
tion ^ in which the following passages occur: 

In regard to the revision of the treaties, our long-nourished wishes have 
at length, by means of a satisfactory agreement with the Treaty Powers, 
attained their end. Considering that the revised treaties are now about to 
come into force, we may regard this moment with joy and hearty satisfaction; 
and, while on the one hand we recognize the responsibilities which the altered 
state of things imposed on the Empire, on the other we hope that the new 
conditions will contribute to build up our friendly relations with the Powers 
on a basis yet firmer than before. We expect, therefore, from our loyal sub¬ 
jects, ever as they are ready to discharge their public duties, that, in accord¬ 
ance with our wishes and the enlightened principles of our national policy, 
they will without exception receive in a kindly spirit the strangers who come 
to us from distant lands, and will thus strive to raise the national reputation 
and maintain the dignity of the Empire. 

With Japan as a successful model, China’s chance of success in 
inducing the Powers to relinquish their foreign jurisdiction is 
exceedingly great. But the only basis upon which justice to the 
foreign residents in China would permit the relinquishment of extra¬ 
territorial privileges is that upon which the jurisdiction was with¬ 
drawn in Japan. A documentary statement of this ground of with¬ 
drawal is to be found in the treaties between China and Great 
Britain, the United States and Japan. The Treaty signed at Shang¬ 
hai, September 5, 1902, between China and Great Britain, reads 
in Article 12, as follows: “China having expressed a strong desire 
to reform her judicial system and to bring it into accord with that of 
Western nation. Great Britain agrees to give every assistance to 
such reform, and she will also be prepared to relinquish her extra¬ 
territorial rights when she is satisfied that the state of the Chinese 
laws, the arrangement for their administration, and other consid- 

Parliamentary Papers, Japan, No. i (1894) p. 68 et seq.; United States Foreign 
Relations, 1899, pp. 467-478. 


Conclusion 


199 


erations warrant her in so doing.” ^ A declaration in substantially 
identical terms is included in Article ii of the Japanese Treaty of 
October 8, 1903,® and in Article 15 of the American Treaty of 
October 8, 1903.^® 

The judicial administration of China is now in a state of transi¬ 
tion. The New Civil, Criminal and Commercial Codes have not 
yet been promulgated, but their compilation has been completed 
with the assistance of Japanese experts. In the meantime the old 
laws of China, except in so far as they have been abrogated or 
modified by recent legislation, or are contrary to the constitution, 
are the law of the land. Under the old system practically every 
provincial official, except those having no territorial jurisdiction, 
exercised judicial as well as administrative functions. This to a 
large extent accounted for the hopeless inefficiency and maladminis¬ 
tration of the law courts. Bribery and torture were the rule rather 
than the exception, and justice was difficult, if not impossible, to 
obtain on its merits. The cruelties practised in the yamens and pri¬ 
sons, and the barbarous methods of punishment employed, gave the 
treaty powers an excuse to claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over 
their own nationals. The new system provides for officials with 
purely judicial powers, but any attempt to train an efficient judiciary 
must prove abortive until the new codes have taken the place of 
the old laws. Four kinds of courts are provided in the new scheme 
viz., (i) The High Court of Justice (Taliyuan) at Peking, which is 
the Supreme Court of Appeal for the whole of China, but is subdi¬ 
vided into the Civil and Criminal Courts, each of which is presided 
over by a bench of five judges; (2) The Provincial High Court (Kao- 
teng-shen-pan-ting), established in each Provincial Capital, which 
is the Supreme Court of the Province and decides important civil 
and criminal cases and also appeals from the District Courts, and 
the bench consists of from three to five judges; (3) The Metropoli¬ 
tan Courts (Ti-fang-shen-pan-ting), established in each Fu, which 
deal with ordinary civil and criminal cases and appeals from the 
Courts of First Instance, and the bench consists of three judges for 
appeals, or one for cases of first instance; (4) The Courts of First 
Instance (Chu-chi-shen-pan-ting), which are to be established in 

» 95 British and Foreign State Papers 39 et seq. 

• 96 ibid., 578. 

»«97 ibid., 721. 


200 


Treaty Ports in China 


each Hsien throughout the country to deal with minor criminal 
and civil cases, one judge presiding over each Court. 

Meanwhile prison administration has undergone a radical change. 
The scheme for its reform was placed in actual operation in many 
great cities as soon as the republican form of government was first 
established, and in 1912 the Minister of Justice made a report on 
this scheme, of which the following is a summarized translation: 

Gaols are an essential part of Judicial administration and machinery. 
The system of Chinese prison administration, which is a very defective one, 
has been employed for centuries. The prisons have been dark and insanitary, 
the treatment of prisoners has been barbarous, so that our prison administra¬ 
tion has become a byword throughout the civilized world. During the latter 
years of the Manchu Dynasty the abuses of the present prison system were 
recognized, and plans for reform were proposed. Now that the Republic has 
been inaugurated the prison system must be reformed in accordance with the 
principles of humanity. The punishments hitherto employed must be modi¬ 
fied, and the gaols must be reformed. Moreover, owing to the fact that our 
prison system and our system of administration of justice are not up to the 
standard of Western civilization. Western nations decline to treat us upon an 
equal footing, and claim the right of exterritorial jurisdiction over their sub¬ 
jects—a fact which is humiliating to the Republic. When I (the Minister of 
Justice) visited Washington, I attended the International Prisons Confer¬ 
ence, where I studied the prison systems of other countries, and the ten¬ 
dencies of modern prison administration. I consider that the reform of the 
Chinese prison system is an urgent matter. It should not be attempted upon 
too large, nor upon too small a scale, taking into consideration the present 
financial situation. About seven years will be required to complete prison 
reforms in the twenty-two provinces. During the coming winter a conference 
of judicial authorities will be summoned at the Ministry of Justice in Peking 
to discuss the problems of prison reform. In the meantime the judicial 
authorities will report upon the gaols in their respective districts, to the 
Ministry. The Peking Model Gaol, which has already been completed, will 
be opened this year. 

Two years ago a plan for reforming the prisons of the capitals and com¬ 
mercial ports of the provinces was drawn up. The number of prisons under 
this plan, including those already built, will be about sixty . . . These 

prisons should be completed by the end of the third year of the Republic . 

As regards the treatment of prisoners, they should not be herded together, 
but should be accommodated in separate cells. The cell system will be more 
expensive, but it and other reforms will be introduced gradually until the 
stage attained in Western Prison Administration is reached. In this way 
criminals will be benefited without unduly taxing China’s financial resources. 


Conclusion 


201 


Thus so far China has been attempting to prove that she is more 
than willing to perform her share of the requirements. However, 
to accomplish this is not the task of China alone but the work of 
the treaty powers as well. As Dr. Koo has well said:^^ 

So long as the latter (the treaty powers), whatever tribute they may pay 
in words to China’s growing desire to recover her jurisdiction over foreigners 
within her territory, remain tenacious in the maintenance of the principle 
of extraterritoriality, it is unlikely that China will be anxious to level down 
the barriers which now stand in treaties between the open ports and the 
interior or to remove the restrictions, which are now found in her laws, upon 
the freedom of the foreign merchant to share in the unprecedented oppor¬ 
tunities for trading and investment throughout the country. Purely from 
the practical point of view it would seem inexpedient to permit alien commer¬ 
cial houses to be established broadcast in every part of the land when they 
are still invested with the immunities of extraterritoriality; for while mis¬ 
sionaries in the interior, apart from their occasional demonstrations of 
exuberance of spirit in evangelical work, which have given birth to many 
anti-missionary riots, have, as a class, been little impeachable in their private 
conduct, it would be entirely a different case with foreign merchants, for in 
their train there are apt to be characters of all kinds and grades. The desired 
freedom and free development of commerce can be fully obtained only by 
China and the treaty powers working together. It seems that their interest 
being intrinsically common, each may justly be expceted to contribute her 
quota to secure their advancement. If China or any of the foreign states 
maintaining treaty relations with her is bent upon getting something for 
nothing, little can be done either for recovering territorial rights on one hand 
or for obtaining full commercial freedom on the other. Mutual forbearance 
and reciprocal concession are no less the best policy in the intercourse be¬ 
tween nations than in the relations between individuals; and history has 
shown that few international questions of an important character have been 
peacefully settled without observing these apparently commonplace prin¬ 
ciples. In other words, intelligent cooperation alone can enable each to 
realize his legitimate object, whether jurisdiction or commerce. 

If the signs of the time are read aright, such cooperation, however, seems 
to be forthcoming. Both China and the treaty powers have begun to realize 
that sound and smooth international relations between them, as between 
other states, must be built on sincere international goodwill, and their 
common delusions as to the inherent antagonism of Chinese and foreign 
interests are gradually giving way to a growing appreciation of the substan¬ 
tial identity of these interests. China, on one side, has in recent years opened 

Koo, V. K, W., The Status of Aliens in China, pp. 354-356. 


202 


Treaty Ports in China 


up on her own initiative, a number of places to foreign trade and has already 
set herself to the task of improving her mercantile system to meet the needs 
of foreign commerce. Many of the treaty powers, on the other side, have 
come to appreciate the capabilities and potentialities of the Chinese people 
and have begun to see the futility, perhaps the folly, of entwining interna- 
national politics with international commerce; they are beginning to direct 
their energies into the broad and straight channels of legitimate and pure 
commercial development. In short, between China and the treaty powers 
there seems to be rising a feeling of community of interest, and evidence is 
beginning to crystallize of their willingness to cooperate for the purpose of 
attaining their common object. 




, . I 




\ 




•'<-^^- :y._ 


f 1 • * C-*'- • fc 



r ' \ X : '• .' ’u"^ Ml ''•‘a 





■ ;S ■'..’/ii/''' 

<^'*.‘*0 ■' A > 


ft>..' 5 f ‘ 

■ \ i . -♦'*1 



i'.'.T.i. ^n,? •■•* ' 




■JWf 


■ .VV';, •', , : ’•■ 4 '<b..<'>‘.'i&^;«v.' 


4 *.}v r . ' 

< . ■ *’ '•,‘* ■ •* •■- '*r 

■■'a. 


JK 







V/-.. 





* P. ••»' 

.^ . ^ « . , 




J^- i . /, 

•■ r \\ ■>/’ 


•C 




lU.«L» 






V 




'•Ai B 




if ' 


*v. 

« 


.•V 


■ y/^} r s^i 


r^. 



% f 


u 


■'i'S'’-v., 


^ 

iT 

' 1 

Tm:' 

V.- 

IV-' 

>'V 

f 

1 • 








¥ 


Vv '/•)■->“ 


r- 


■ ■ ' 



• • • , •» <■’;:• sa 

• ‘T • . ■ 

• \ - 1 ' ;W )*'i'".»'>.* -1 '-1 

\;, - / ;..'\V’",.ir,/->.'■•' ,:'.'wasi««i 


• . ” 1 •> .1 ' • vl 

•/ vr%f'^<SR 





k. 












I ^ 


'it 

M\ k’ "i 11 . . 


m 


>f ' 4 




' ' , -J- .V • • ■ ■ i ■•' • ' ‘1 

* # I '-I lli^^ ' '‘t-i 


? V ' - 


W'.jivi - .. 


1 * » » ‘ ■ 


kin' 


ih'J 










• r:... v'-- ^ 




*i. «• ■ 







i 


FEb 2 7 191S 











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































